Oakham North Final Report for the Technology Strategy Board August 2013

Design for Future Climate: Oakham North Final report for the Technology Strategy Board August 2013

Project Name Oakham North

Project Number 400250

Submitted by Helen Pearce, LDA Design

A 14–17 Wells Mews London W1T 3HF United Kingdom T +44 (0) 20 7467 1470 F +44 (0) 20 7467 1471 W www.lda-design.co.uk LDA Design Consulting LLP 1 Registered No: OC307725 17 Minster Precincts, Peterborough PE1 1XX

Contents

Executive Summary ...... 1 1.0 Development profile ...... 1 1.1. Site context ...... 1 1.2. Development proposals ...... 1 1.3. House types ...... 3 2.0 Climate change risks ...... 5 2.1. Introduction ...... 5 2.2. Selecting climate change scenarios ...... 5 2.3. Climate change projections ...... 5 2.4. Climate change risk assessment ...... 6 3.0 Adaptation strategy ...... 12 3.1. Adaptation strategy ...... 12 3.2. Timescales ...... 20 3.4. Cost benefit analysis ...... 23 3.5. Recommendations implemented and barriers to implementation ...... 27 4.0 Learning from work on this contract ...... 31 4.1. Summary of approach ...... 31 4.2. Project team ...... 34 4.3. Project plan ...... 35 4.4. Strengths and limitations of resources and recommended resources ...... 37 4.5. Strengths and weaknesses of approach and recommended methodology ...... 37 4.6. Influencing client decision-making ...... 38 5.0 Extending adaptation to other buildings ...... 40 5.1. Application of the strategy to other buildings ...... 40 5.2. Resources, tools and materials developed through this contract ...... 41 5.3. Further needs to be able to provide adaptation services ...... 41 Appendix 0: Checklists ...... 42 Appendix 0.1: Checklist 1: Report structure ...... 42 Appendix 0.2: Checklist 2: Report contents ...... 43 Appendix 1: Further information on the building profile ...... 45 Appendix 1.1: Elevations ...... 45 Appendix 1.2: Building fabric thermal performance assumptions ...... 46 Appendix 2: Further information on climate change risks ...... 47 Appendix 2.1: Selection of climate change scenarios ...... 47 Appendix 2.2: Climate change projections ...... 48 Appendix 3: Further information on adaptation strategy ...... 52 Appendix 3.1: Thermal Comfort Analysis and Recommendations, Buro Happold (2012) ...... 52

Appendix 3.2: Technical Report on Construction Standards, Capita Symonds (2012) ...... 52 Appendix 3.3: Managing Water Technical Report, Wormald Burrows (2013) ...... 52 Appendix 3.4: Review of Existing Research on Trees and Climate Change, LDA Design (2012)52 Appendix 3.5: Cost Feasibility Appraisals, Capita Symonds (2012) ...... 52 Appendix 3.6: Thermal comfort adaptation options and assumptions ...... 53 Appendix 3.7: Construction adaptation options and assumptions ...... 54 Appendix 3.8: Tree species considered resilient to projected climate change ...... 57 Appendix 3.9: Checklist 3: Design opportunities exploited ...... 59 Appendix 4: Further information on project learning...... 64 Appendix 4.1: Team structure ...... 64 Appendix 4.2: Biographies of team members ...... 64 Appendix 4.3: Presentation by Rob Shaw on climate change adaptation for Ecobuild, 21 March 2012 ...... 66 Appendix 4.4: Presentation by Rob Shaw and Raphael Sibille to Defra's Adapting to Climate Change team ...... 66 Appendix 4.5: Case study ...... 66 Appendix 5: Further information on extending adaptation to other buildings ...... 67 Endnotes ...... 68

Executive Summary LDA Design successfully applied to the Technology Strategy Board Design for Future Climate (D4FC) programme for funding to develop an adaptation strategy for Phase 1 of Larkfleet Homes’ Oakham North development. This report describes the work undertaken and the conclusions in terms of the adaptation strategy. Checklists providing an overview of the structure and content of the report are provided in Appendix 0. We have assessed the likely impacts of climate change on the development and the potential for adapting the design of the building fabric and services, internal layout, structural design, site drainage, green infrastructure and public realm to reduce the vulnerability of new homes built on the site. The costs and benefits of the adaptation options have also been reviewed. Our aim was to develop a realistic strategy which successfully manages the significant impacts on homes, can be confidently delivered by Larkfleet and can act as a model for other residential-led, timber framed construction projects. To do this our strategy must help create a more attractive and comfortable development that is resilient and flexible to on-going change. Our client, Larkfleet Homes, had a critical role to play in the development of the strategy as they were able to provide feedback on the feasibility and viability of implementing the adaptation options considered. The Oakham North development will provide up to 1,200 new homes, a range of commercial buildings, a continuing care retirement community, new sports facilities and landscaping set over 60 ha, located in between Leicester and Peterborough. Phase 1 of the masterplan, which was the subject of this study, includes 135 houses and two areas of allotments in a public realm setting. Three house types were used throughout this study as being representative of the homes proposed for the site: a four bedroom detached house, a three bedroom semi-detached house, and a three bedroom barn-type dwelling. The homes are being built to meet the standards of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and the Building Regulations Part L (2010) (the base construction case). Climate change projections for the area were taken from the UKCP09 high scenario, to obtain a conservative estimate of the potential impacts and reflect the current global emissions trajectory. The climate change projections were considered in relation to the site context and the development proposals to identify the range of potential climate change impacts relevant to the site. A risk assessment was used to rank the impacts, revealing the following priorities for the site:  Overheating within homes  The structural stability of foundations and above ground construction in homes  Surface water flooding  Water resource availability Further detailed analysis of each of these impacts was undertaken in order to identify and assess a range of adaptation options, with reference to the Design for Future Climate categories of designing for thermal comfort, construction and water management. This analysis comprised the following elements:  Thermal comfort modelling, undertaken by Buro Happold (Appendix 3.1)  Advice on foundation and superstructure options, by Capita Symonds (Appendix 3.2)  Assessment of the proposals for surface water drainage and water conservation, by Wormald Burrows (Appendix 3.3)  Advice on selection and specification of climate change resilient trees for development, by LDA Design (Appendix 3.4)  Cost analysis, by Capita Symonds (Appendix 3.5)

The outcome of each of these technical studies is presented in a suite of reports provided as attachments to this main report (see the relevant sub-sections of Appendix 3, as listed above). The aims of the adaptation strategy for Oakham North are to reduce the impact on the development of changes to the climate which are happening now, and to increase resistance and resilience to future impacts. The adaptation strategy has been structured to respond to the key areas of risk and consider the design opportunities set out in the TSB’s Design for Future Climate guide.i A checklist has been provided alongside this report which sets out which of those design opportunities have been considered, recommended or implemented. It is essential that the priority measures which are fundamental to the design and layout of the development are integrated from the outset, as the cost and practical implications of retrofitting them are prohibitive. For Oakham North these include:  Resilient foundation designs, including deeper raft foundations, piles or basements where appropriate depending on localised ground conditions  Surface water drainage systems, which have been designed to comprise SUDS and permeable surfaces sufficient to attenuate run-off to greenfield rates including an adequate allowance for increased rainfall intensity associated with climate change  Green infrastructure, in particular including private garden space and advanced planting of a suitable mix of tree species in relevant parts of the site A number of other measures are practical to implement from the outset, provide an immediate benefit to residents, and have been recommended for installation in new homes at Oakham North. These include:  Locating high heat gain spaces such as kitchens on north or eastern elevations  Using open plan spaces to enhance cross ventilation  Using thermal mass with night cooling where feasible  Fitting simple shading devices, especially west and south orientations and rooms where heat gains and occupancy levels are high, such as living rooms and kitchens. External shuttering preferred to simple internal blinds if viable  Fitting mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR) or ensuring sufficient space for future installation, including an allowance for larger ventilation ducts  Educational material on climate change and how behaviour affects thermal comfort  Installing good practice low water-use fittings and water meters  Providing rainwater butts for outdoor irrigation Alongside these we have listed measures which are not necessary under the short term climate projections and are not currently considered viable for this development, but may be retrofitted in future as and when the need is demonstrated. This includes mechanical cooling and external shading devices. There are a number of options for how some of the measures in the adaptation strategy are implemented, for example different types of shading devices, which differ in performance and cost. The minimum additional cost per dwelling of installing the adaptation measures proposed would be £16,365 for the detached dwelling, which represents an increase of around 16% compared to the base construction cost of achieving Code 3 and Building Regulations Part L (2010) compliance. This would provide for the basic raft footing foundations, increased thermal mass, increased ceiling heights, stack ventilation, reflective lining under the roof, low-G glazing and standard internal

blinds. If the highest specification options were implemented from the above list the maximum over-cost per detached home would be £73,500 based on the cost analysis, or an increase of 68% compared to base construction costs. This would provide for the basement box foundations, increased thermal mass, increased ceiling heights, stack ventilation, mechanical ventilation and heat recovery with cooling, reflective lining under roof, low-G glazing and electronically controlled external blinds. The impact on construction costs is similar for the other house types. The most significant elements of the above costs are the enhanced foundation options, the mechanical ventilation and cooling, and the external shading devices. While these are the most expensive items, they also provide the greatest benefits in terms of ensuring that the homes are resilient and well adapted to the long term impacts of climate change. Of these, the mechanical ventilation and cooling systems, and the external blinds are not considered to be essential in today’s climate and they can be retrofitted at a later date when the need becomes more apparent, provided sufficient space is provided and the structural design of the property allows for future retrofit. This is therefore the recommended strategy for Oakham North. Site-wide infrastructure and external adaptation measures including the SUDS strategy and green infrastructure were already incorporated into the masterplan for Oakham North, and are not considered to be additional cost items compared to the base construction case. In addition, the installation of low-flow water efficient fittings has not been included in these costs as it would be necessary with or without the adaptation strategy to enable the Code for Sustainable Homes target to be achieved for the site. Adaptation to climate change can avoid significant costs in future. However, there is a substantial increase in construction costs associated with implementing the range of measures described above. This must be reconciled with the commercial realities of development, where there is pressure to keep build costs down. This requires a creative approach to developing adaptation strategies, focusing on measures which improve the overall quality of new development through the multiple social, environmental and economic benefits which can provide and maximise value. For example, increasing the amount of urban greenery can help absorb floodwater and can help make buildings and public spaces more comfortable in hot weather. They can help improve air and water quality, and encourage use of public spaces, all while adding to the value of nearby homesii. One of the weaknesses of cost-benefit analysis is that it does not prioritise the non-monetary benefits of climate change adaptation, which are sometimes more important to the occupants of the development and other stakeholders in the long run but do not accrue to the developer, such as improved health and well-being. Related to this, there may be a difference between who incurs the costs of adaptation and who reaps the benefits, or vice versa, depending on when adaptation measures are implemented during construction or retrofitted at a later date. If all of the benefits of adaptation accrue to future residents of the site and other stakeholders such as the local authority or water company, and these do not result in higher demand for the properties or higher sales values, there is little incentive for the developer to invest unless compelled to do so by planning policy or regulation. It has not been possible to implement most of the measures recommended in the adaptation strategy for houses in Phase 1 of Oakham North due to the advanced stage in the planning, design and development process. Larkfleet has however confirmed that it will provide information about climate change impacts and adaptation as part of the homebuyers guide, such as guidance on how to manage internal heat gains and maintain a comfortable indoor environment or a description of the water-efficiency features in the property. Larkfleet has also agreed that it will offer internal blinds and rainwater butts to homebuyers as optional extras as part of the fit out. Further measures will be introduced in future phases of the project. The tree planting schedule for future phases of Oakham North is being changed to reflect recommendations from the adaptation

strategy. Location of high heat gain spaces on north or east facing elevations will also be considered actively in the design of future phases of Oakham North. MVHR is being proposed for the social housing in the next phase of Oakham North, as the role of the Housing Association in managing tenant relationships and providing maintenance services is helpful in managing risk. MVHR will only be installed in market housing by Larkfleet Homes when the Building Regulations energy efficiency and carbon targets are tightened to the point where it becomes a regulatory requirement. Other measures are not currently considered to be viable, given the impact on costs, the lack of housebuyers’ willingness or ability to pay for adaptation, the absence of regulatory requirements and lack of impact on insurance premiums or the valuation of properties by mortgage lenders. The main drivers for buyers of new homes are often ability to buy, price, ability to secure an attractive mortgage deal and location, so adaptation is not a sufficient priority at present to influence values. A more comprehensive range of adaptation measures will be implemented in future phases of the Oakham North development and on other Larkfleet Homes schemes, if some of these barriers can be overcome. Our approach was designed to identify the potential impacts of climate change on the Phase 1 development at Oakham North and assess the options for adaptation. We used the available published information on climate projections and the associated risks to identify and prioritise key risks for the site, then undertook more detailed modelling to design and validate adaptation measures based on their contribution to risk reduction. Throughout the project we worked with the client to review the results, discuss the options and agree the adaptation strategy, culminating in the conclusions presented in this report. The approach can be broken down into the following stages:  Climate change risk assessment  Options appraisal  Detailed testing  Forming the strategy  Dissemination In general, we found the approach taken to develop the adaptation strategy to be effective within the current context, particularly the current pressures on development viability, uncertainty in the climate projections, and the lack of a strong regulatory driver for climate change adaptation. We would recommend the methodology set out above to others, with the following caveats. The preparation of an adaptation strategy should start as early as possible in the development process, at the feasibility stage when a site is being considered if not before this during site selection. Our ability to influence the proposals for Oakham North Phase 1 was significantly limited as key decisions had already been made prior to our involvement. Fortunately some of the critical elements of site infrastructure, particularly the drainage strategy and green infrastructure proposals, were subsequently found to be sufficient to provide resilience to future climate based on the projections used in this study. Related to this, we also found limitations as a result of working with standard house types which had already been fixed for the development. An adaptation strategy is likely to be more successful and affordable if there is flexibility to modify built form and fabric. A further challenge to our approach was the length and variability of the development programme for large sites. Although our D4FC project had a duration of almost two years, it was still found to be insufficient to be able to see the adaptation strategy through to practical on-site testing, implementation and occupant feedback, which would be instrumental in refining and delivering a

successful adaptation strategy. Larkfleet have however confirmed that they will continue to monitor developments in the housing market and supply chain, and test new technologies and techniques beyond the end of the D4FC project, prior to any larger roll out or change in their standard practice in future. Although it is important to recognise the wider benefits of adaptation and find a way to incentivise building in resilience from the outset of built development where possible, cost benefit analysis was found to be of limited use in the development of the adaptation strategy. This is because:  It is difficult to quantify many of the benefits of adaptation  They accrue to future occupants and other stakeholders potentially some years beyond the construction of the homes  These beneficiaries do not yet recognise the importance of climate change adaptation and are not willing to pay for it  As a result the developer has no way of recovering the costs of their investment Oakham North is similar to other greenfield housing developments across the UK in terms of housing density, mix and size of the dwellings proposed, with the exception that homes are of timber frame construction rather than the more common masonry brick and block construction. The learning points from the adaptation strategy for Phase 1 of Oakham North should be relevant to future phases of development at Oakham North, other future projects undertaken by the client Larkfleet Homes and new housing schemes by other developers, particularly those who also specialise in timber frame housing, provided the barriers raised in this study can be addressed. The findings of this study should also be of interest to planning authorities and relevant trade associations, including the UK Timber Frame Association. In addition, the lessons learnt will be carried forwards in the professional advice given on future projects by the consultant team engaged in this study.

0.0

1.0 Development profile

1.1. Site context Oakham is a growing town of 10,000 people and is expected to deliver most of the new housing needed in Rutland. The majority of new development in Oakham will be accommodated in an extension to the town, known as Oakham North. Oakham is located in a predominantly rural area, roughly half way between Leicester and Peterborough. Around a mile to the south east of Oakham lies Rutland Water, a major reservoir owned by Anglian Water. The reservoir and surrounding land are used for water sports, fishing, walking and cycling and it is also one of the most important wildfowl sanctuaries in the country, designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a European Special Protection Area and an internationally important wetland RAMSAR site. Oakham North is located within the Anglian Water supply area. This is the driest region in the UK, with annual rainfall almost 30% less than the long-term average for England. In addition, the region contains a number of internationally important wetland sites and other water dependent habitats, which must be protected from the impacts of climate change and increasing demand for water. For these reasons, the area is designated an area of serious water stress.iii The development site is situated on the north western edge of Oakham. The site broadly slopes in a south-easterly direction, ranging from 127m above ordnance datum (AOD) to 112 m AOD. The majority of the site comprises medium sized fields which are well defined by hedges and trees, with occasional stands of coniferous or mixed tree planting. Part of the land south of the bypass was occupied by the Barleythorpe Stud and has since been redeveloped to provide housing. The southern area of the site formerly accommodated the Rutland County Show. The grounds are currently used as sports pitches for local football and rugby clubs. Ground condition surveys have found the site geology to include areas of clay to different depths across the site. The southern part of the site is bisected by Barleythorpe Brook, a large watercourse running west-east across the site, set within a natural valley. The Brook is culverted for approximately 50% of its length. This area will form the basis of Hawksmead Park with the eastern section being a deep, open watercourse maintained by the Environment Agency. An ornamental pond lies adjacent to the Brook. Other small field ponds are scattered across site but these are dry most of the year. Based on local knowledge the site has never flooded in the past. Examination of the Environment Agency flood maps shows that the site is entirely located within Flood Zone 1, which indicates a low probability of flooding, having less than 1 in 1000 year annual probability of river or sea flooding.

1.2. Development proposals The Oakham North development will eventually include up to 1,200 new homes, a range of commercial buildings, a continuing care retirement community, new sports facilities and landscaping set over 60 ha. The outline masterplan design has been given planning consent and proposes a phased sequence of construction delivering approximately 100 homes per year. The Reserved Matters Application was lodged in August 2011 with detailed design and production information prepared November 2011 to April 2012. As of June 2012, the first Phase 1 units are under construction with the remaining sub-phases to be built between 2012 and 2014. The adaptation strategy is focused on Phase 1 because the availability of detailed design information will allow a more comprehensive adaptation strategy to be explored at the building scale. However,

because this phase of the development is relatively well advanced the opportunity to influence the site layout and major features has been limited. The masterplan layout has been greatly influenced by need to retain the majority of mature native trees and hedgerows on site, which together with the retained ponds and Barleythorpe Brook promote biodiversity within the site and provide amenity to the proposed housing areas. The primary streets are designed as tree, hedge and verge lined avenues. A secondary network of narrower ‘village streets’ provide access to the remainder of the site.

Figure 1: Illustrative Oakham North masterplan from the Oakham North design code, October 2011

Phase 1 of the masterplan includes 135 houses and two areas of allotments in a public realm setting. The layout of development in Phase 1 is shown in Figure 2. Homes are primarily detached or semi- detached with a small number of terraces and flats. The houses within Phase 1 sit within distinct character areas with a range of building density:  Low density, 20-30 dwellings per hectare (dph), with primarily detached homes  Intermediate density, 30-40dph, with terracing and courtyards, and some detached homes  Higher density, 40-50dph, a mix of terraced, semi-detached homes with some apartments

Figure 2: Oakham North Phase 1 plan

1.3. House types A number of different house types are being used in Phase 1, all of which use a timber frame construction with brick cladding. Three types have been selected as representative of the majority of onsite construction and used as the basis for detailed modelling and assessment throughout this report:  A detached house with 4 bedrooms, assumed to be occupied by six people with a net floor area of 107.4 m2 (type 2308)  A semi-detached house with 3 bedrooms, assumed to be occupied by 5 people, with a net floor area of 84.7 m2 (type 2422)  A terraced barn-style house with 3 bedrooms, assumed to be occupied by 5 people, with a net floor area of 104m2 (barn type) Drawings of the elevations of each of the above house types are included in Appendix 1.1, Figure 9 to Figure 11. Homes in Phase 1 of the development have been designed primarily to meet Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3. Later development phases are expected to be built to increasing standards, however, local planning policy and the approach to Building Regulations and the Code for Sustainable Homes at the national level are being reviewed, and decisions on higher targets for the development in future will need to reflect any changes to policy and regulation.

A ‘fabric first’ approach has been taken to achieve energy efficiency targets, which uses high levels of insulation, low air permeability and mechanical ventilation with heat recovery. This approach allows higher scores in the energy components of the Code to be met without using renewable energy and is more representative of the proposed construction standards for Part L 2013. Figure 12 in Appendix 1.2 presents U-values and technical performance standards for each of the major building elements.

2.0 Climate change risks

2.1. Introduction We are increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere faster than ever beforeiv. The International Energy Agency has warned that to avoid ‘catastrophic and irreversible’ global warming this trend must be reversed quickly. In spite of this, there is a growing consensus that a comprehensive global agreement to reduce our emissions is unlikely to be in place soonv. As a result, we are following an emissions trajectory similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s A1F1 scenario, commonly described as ‘business as usual’vi. This emissions trajectory is the basis for the UKCP09 ‘high scenario’. To continue following our current path would mean around a 50% chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4oC by 2100iv. The projected impacts associated with an increase of this magnitude are severe, particularly as even higher levels of change may be experienced locally. Sea level rises, desertification and the increasing likelihood of extreme weather eventsvii have the potential to cause the migration of millions of people around the world and severe and sustained conflictviii. Limiting temperature rises to 2oC has long been the principal target of international debate. Intensifying our efforts to mitigate climate change is essential but an increasing awareness that this target is likely to be exceeded makes adaptation an urgent concern.

2.2. Selecting climate change scenarios The strategy will make use of the UKCP09 high scenario, data availability permitting, to obtain a conservative estimate of the potential impacts and reflect the current global emissions trajectory. For next 50 years, it represents an upper central estimate of temperature change. For the second half of the century and beyond, it provides a plausible upper estimate of temperature change, which is used to test whether a suitable retrofit option could be deployed should this temperature change become a more likely outcome. Details of the climate change scenarios considered for the project and the basis for this selection are provided in Appendix 2.1.

2.3. Climate change projections UKCP09 provides probabilistic projectionsix of key climate variables at a higher geographic resolution then has ever been available before. The Weather Generator allows the UKCP09 projections of long term trends to be used to interpret likely changes in weather patterns. It can be helpful in assessing vulnerability to impacts which occur over shorter time periods. The detailed data behind our analysis of climate change projections is provided in Appendix 2.2. In summary, the UKCP09 projections confirm that the national climate trends are broadly applicable to Oakham North:  Warmer wetter winters  Hotter drier summers  A higher likelihood of extreme weather events including heatwaves and intense rainfall  The impact of climate change on wind speeds is uncertain and little confidence is assigned to existing projections

2.4. Climate change risk assessment

2.4.1. Initial risk assessment The climate change risk assessment is based on the methodology promoted by UKCIP. An initial risk assessment is used to qualitatively identify the key risks which should be addressed as a priority. These issues are then investigated further, using more detailed analysis and modelling to characterise the risks further and to design and validate adaptation measures. A risk matrix approach incorporates both the uncertainty of future outcomes and their consequences into account in the decision making process. The components of risk are:  Likelihood: the probability of an event occurring as well as its frequency and duration  Consequence: the impact on buildings, infrastructure and people (taking into account their vulnerability) of that event

consequence likelihood 1 2 3 4 5 5 severe 4 high 3 medium 2 low 1

Figure 3: Risk matrix used to classify risks according to its severity

The list of initial risks taken into consideration has been drawn from Design for future climate – opportunities for adaptation in the built environment. The assessment at this stage is both relative and subjective but has been based on the site and its context through discussions with the developer and the design team. It has also been supported by the findings of the UK’s Climate Change Risk Assessmentx.

Designing for comfort likelihood consequence risk Keeping cool - internal daytime 5 3 high Keeping cool - internal night time 3 4 high Keeping cool - public realm 3 3 med

Construction Structural stability - below ground 3 3 med Structural stability - above ground 2 2 low Structural stability - roads and hard surfaces 3 2 low Structural stability - slopes and embankments 1 3 low Weatherproofing, detailing and materials 2 2 low Construction - materials behaviour 2 2 low Construction - work on site 1 2 low

Managing water Drainage - fluvial flooding 1 4 low Drainage - groundwater flooding 2 3 med Drainage - surface water flooding 3 4 high Drainage - building related 3 2 low Drainage - foul sewer failure 1 3 low Drought - domestic water resources 3 3 med Drought - landscape 4 2 low

Figure 4: Summary of the initial risk assessment

The following potential risks have been identified as priorities for the Oakham North development in light of this initial risk assessment:  Overheating within homes  The structural stability of foundations and above ground construction in homes  Surface water flooding  Water resource availability Further detailed analysis of each of these areas of risk is provided in the following sections.

2.4.3. Overheating within homes Higher summer temperatures will increase the likelihood and intensity of overheating in homes and in the public realm. Homes at Oakham North will be well insulated, which can trap solar gains. In addition, they will be timber framed, potentially creating a greater risk because of their relatively low thermal mass. Due to the potential high risk exposure to rising summer temperatures, all three dwelling types have been assessed for overheating risk against 2005 and future weather data, using dynamic thermal modelling software. The assessment was undertaken by Buro Happold and the details are provided in their technical report, which has been submitted as Appendix 3.1 to this main project report (see Designing for Thermal Comfort: Final Report, Buro Happold (March 2013),). The results of this assessment suggest that the current design proposals for the three dwellings vary in their response to the three future climate scenarios tested. These responses can be summarised as follows:  Most dwelling spaces (with the exception of kitchens) are effective against overheating criteria in the current climate.  All spaces fail to comply with overheating criteria for 2050 extreme weather – this is considered representative of the extreme nature of average and peak temperature increases in this climate scenario.  Bedrooms in the detached and semi-detached house types typically pass the overheating criterion for current, 2030 median and 2050 median weather.  Bedrooms in the terraced barn-type house tend to fail the overheating criterion under the 2050 median scenario as well as 2050 extreme weather conditions – this is likely to be due to the limiting opening area of windows in these spaces where roof-lights only are provided and relied upon for natural ventilation, as well as increased conduction gains due to lack of a buffer roof void.  Non-bedroom occupied spaces perform significantly worse than bedrooms against the overheating criterion under both 2030 and 2050 weather scenarios, typically due to daytime occupation (i.e. during the assessed period) and high levels of solar gain. Where these spaces are located on west and south facing elevations they should be prioritised in terms of measures that prevent solar gains (internal / external shading, solar control glass) before addressing reduction of internal gains.  Kitchen spaces perform particularly poorly – these areas have very high internal gains and short periods of occupancy typically during times of high solar gain. Both of these factors contribute to making overheating targets difficult to meet.  Orientation should be considered for high heat gains spaces such as kitchens, where location facing north or east is preferable to south or west. This may make a tangible (if not very significant) contribution to reducing risk of overheating.

2.4.4. Structural stability The main structural risk to the homes at Oakham North as a result of climate change is related to the impact on the building’s foundations, which will be affected primarily by the bearing capacity of the ground and the behaviour of the ground under fluctuations climatic and sometimes related ground water conditions. Analysis of the potential structural risks to the homes in Phase 1 at Oakham North has been undertaken by Capita Symonds. Their findings are set out in the document entitled Technical Report on Construction Standards, Capita Symonds (2012), which is provided in Appendix 3.2 of this main project report.

Ground condition surveys have found the site geology to include areas of clay to different depths across the site, which could affect the below ground stability of foundations, roadways and hard external surfaces. Residential foundations tend to be relatively shallow strip footings. Because clay soil shrinkage may lead to subsidence, deeper or more expensive foundations may become necessary. Foundations on most rocks, sands, gravels and chalk are generally unaffected by climatic conditions as the ground does not gain or lose strength or move as a result of these conditions. Foundations on some carbonate rocks and chalk can be affected by changes in ground water level and flow leading to the formation of voids in the founding stratum which may lead to sudden subsidence. At the time of reporting it is uncertain what the general effect climate change in the UK will have on groundwater levels and flows in such strata and many changes are likely to be both region and site specific. The Natural Environment Research Council’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in association with the British Geological Survey is undertaking a detailed study on future river flows and ground water levels results of which are expected to be published in October 2012. Foundations of shrinkable clays are often severally affected by climatic conditions as in summer water is drawn from the clays leading to shrinkage which results in settlement of the ground. This is by both evaporation for the ground surface and transpiration of vegetation, often referred to as evapo-transpiration. Swelling occurs in winter leading to heave of the ground. The depth of these effects is dependent on the local climate and vegetation but in southern and central England away from the roots of trees and large shrubs seasonal desiccation and heave occur up to 1 to 1.5m depth, the latter depth being in current extreme years. Current foundation guidance for high plasticity clays is that foundations should be set at least 1m below existing ground levels away from trees and large shrubs as the movements associated with desiccation in current ‘extreme’ years will not cause significant damage and any cracks will close in the following winter. Where trees or larger shrubs are present there is deeper, sometimes persistent, desiccation associated with roots of trees and large shrubs. Design of foundations where trees and large shrubs are present are necessarily site-specific as they are dependent on the type of trees and large shrubs, the degree of shrinkability of the founding clays and the distance the vegetation is from buildings. The amount of evapo-transpiration that occurs is controlled by the ambient temperature and most importantly wind speed as well as the ground’s ability to release moisture. There are a number of major papers that have been examining the effects of climate change on evapo-transpiration and soil moisture deficits (a measure of the suction in the ground as a result of desiccation). In examining the likely effect of climate change on the foundation design of residential housing we have examined a number of reference documents.xi On the basis of this review, it is apparent that there remains at this time considerable uncertainty as to the level of risk associated with changes that will occur with soil moisture deficits and evapotranspiration as a result of climate change, not least because of the uncertainty as to the likely change in wind speeds that will occur in future. We have deduced that for Southern and Central England there is expected to be wetter winter/springs – on a mean basis 13 to 16% wetter in winter/spring and 15 to 18% drier in summers by 2080. Given the uncertainty with regard to wind speeds assuming that these do not change significantly it is likely that the depth of seasonal desiccation will increase. There has been no published detailed research as to how this will impact on foundation depths to minimise the risk of significant damage and determining the depth is beyond the scope of this work. We have assumed for this study that the mean depth of seasonal desiccation will increase by 500mm by 2100 and in extreme years by greater than that, possibly 1m.

2.4.5. Surface water flooding Although the site is not in an area of fluvial or coastal flood risk and there are no records of it having flooded in the past, the risk of surface water flooding is projected to become more severe as climate change brings more intense rainfall. The potential impacts of climate change on surface water flooding for Oakham North have been considered by Wormald Burrows, and their findings are reported in Managing Water Technical Report, Wormald Burrows (2013), which is provided in Appendix 3.3. There is potential for surface water flooding on or around the site in future if the site and its drainage systems are not adequately designed to cope with the projected increases in rainfall rates. This could include localised surface water flooding on-site. Where this causes foul sewers to overflow, floodwaters can be polluted by domestic sewage. In addition, as the whole of the site eventually drains to Barleythorpe Brook, increasing rates of run-off could increase flood risk in Barleythorpe Brook or at other sites downstream. A Defra and Environment Agency study has used extreme value analysis to characterise the probability and magnitude of extreme eventsxii. The project assessed the likely vulnerability of individual catchments by looking at the catchments properties and the response of the flood regime to a range of climatic changes. The change in the return period of rainfall events is then calculated. The analysis of individual catchment flood responses identified five main families of response patterns. Two catchments near to Oakham were tested in the report and were defined as enhancing and sensitive, which means they are “relatively vulnerable to small changes in rainfall” and “very vulnerable to almost any increase in rainfall” respectively. To prevent increasing risk of flood risk downstream or on other sites as a result of the development at Oakham North, the Environment Agency requires the surface water run-off rates after the development is completed to be no greater than for the greenfield site. The Environment Agency guidance on the assessment of flood risk and the design of surface water drainage systems recommends that an allowance is made for rainfall intensities to increase by 30% compared to current rates to account for the potential impacts of climate change. These industry standard design assumptions for flood risk have been reviewed for Oakham North, to determine if they are sufficient compared to the projected extreme rainfall events based on data from the UKCP09’s weather generator. If precipitation at the study site increases in line with the projections set out in Section 2.4.4, the peak surface-water run-off rates from the site would be less than that generated by applying the Environment Agency’s recommended allowance of a 30% increase on current rates. This confirms that designing the site and its surface water drainage systems to comply with the Environment Agency guidance should be more than adequate to manage the increasing surface water flood risk associated with the projected increases in rainfall intensity. This allowance has therefore been used in the development of the adaptation strategy for the site and the design of hard landscaping, green infrastructure and sustainable drainage systems.

2.4.6. Water resource availability Spring and summer droughts in the UK are becoming increasingly common and climate change projections suggest summer rainfall will decrease, or that there will be more sporadic periods of heavy rainfall interspersed with dry spells. This, coupled with projected increases in summer temperatures and population growth, could result in a significant problem with water shortages throughout the country. The risk associated with the availability of water resources is a question of supply and demand and addressing both short and long-term scenarios. According to the Environment Agency, the worst case scenario is that total water demand in England and Wales could increase 35% by the 2050s.

This increase in demand could result in widespread water rationing if reservoirs, aquifers and rivers are already below normal levels as a consequence of drier and hotter summers. Working with the Environment Agency, Anglian Water has undertaken an assessment of how climate change is likely to affect its groundwater and surface water resources and also how it could affect demand for water. The assessment considers the supply and demand balance through to 2039, which is the period covered by the new Water Resources Management Plan. It also looks at the longer term impacts particularly on vulnerable surface water resources, using UKCP09 projections for the 2050s. Under the worst case climate change scenarios considered for the 2050s, the water resource zone in which Oakham is located is at risk of being under a supply-demand deficit. Although Anglian Water has identified the potential to resolve this deficit by developing the South Lincolnshire Reservoir, installing infrastructure to enable water trading between different water companies in the East of England, and reducing leakage in the system, the Water Resources Management Plan also notes that large reductions levels of consumption would also be required. Water efficiency will therefore be an important aspect of the climate change adaptation strategy for new housing, including development at Oakham North.

3.0 Adaptation strategy

3.1. Adaptation strategy The aims of the adaptation strategy for Oakham North are to:  Reduce the impact on the development of changes to the climate which are happening now  Increase resistance and resilience to future impacts The persistence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere gives global warming inertia, so temperatures are projected to continue rising for decades after greenhouse gas emissions peak. The change will be incremental and will result in an on-going process of change and uncertaintyxiii. Adaptation needs to be a dynamic and flexible process, with decisions made in light of the lifetime of buildings and infrastructure, and what opportunities might be exploited to enable adaptation retrofit in future. Adaptation of our homes will be an on-going process of change. We recognise that any additions to construction costs now should be focussed on addressing significant risks in the short to medium term while enabling future retrofit and behavioural responses to adaptation. To this end, where possible we have considered the most appropriate timing for implementing measures, based on when the risks are projected to occur, the lifetime of products and opportunities to retrofit adaptation measures during normal replacement/maintenance cycles. The adaptation strategy has been structured to respond to the key areas of risk and consider the design opportunities set out in the TSB’s Design for Future Climate guide.xiv D4FC Checklist 3: Design Opportunities Exploited, provided in Appendix 3.9 of this report, sets out which of those design opportunities have been considered, recommended or implemented.

3.1.1. Designing for comfort The options for designing homes at Oakham North to ensure thermal comfort in the future climate have been assessed by Buro Happold as part of this study. Their analysis and detailed findings are presented in the Thermal Comfort Analysis and Recommendations report, which is provided in Appendix 3.1. The following options were considered for improving thermal performance:  Glazing solar performance  Thermal mass  Thermal mass plus night-purge  Mechanical ventilation flow rate increase  Pre cooling of mechanical ventilation air  Evaporative cooling  Stack ventilation  External shading  Internal shading  Green infrastructure  Adaptive thermal comfort A description of each of these options including key assumptions used in thermal modelling is provided in Appendix 3.6.

On the basis of the technical analysis undertaken for this study, the following elements are recommended for inclusion in homes in Oakham North Phase 1 from the outset to ensure that they are designed for thermal comfort:  Provide educational material on climate change, the adaptation strategy and how behaviour and use of appliances affects thermal comfort  Integrate shading devices for increased occupant control of the indoor environment to limit summertime solar gains, especially on west and south-facing glazing, and rooms where heat gains and occupancy levels are high, such as living rooms and kitchens. External shuttering should be considered as more effective compared to simple internal shading (i.e. roller or reflective blinds)  Develop window opening strategy based on dwelling type - e.g. rooms such as barn bedrooms where free area is potentially limited by opening type (roof-light)  Use open plan spaces (e.g. where kitchen, living, dining are open to each other) to enhance cross ventilation potential  Incorporate green infrastructure at the individual building level (e.g. green roofs, green garden space allowance) as well as at the master-planning level (green communal areas, tree-planting), with an appropriate maintenance strategy  Consider locating high heat gain spaces such as kitchens on the north or eastern elevations to reduce solar gains  Use thermal mass with night cooling where feasible, focusing on dwellings such as the barn where opportunities for increasing the proportion of heavyweight elements within the scope of the design are greatest In the medium term, considering the 2030s timescale, the following measures are recommended for Oakham North:  Additional internal and/or external shading  Retrofit of phase change materials to increase the thermal mass of the lightweight structures  Retrofit of improved mechanical ventilation, use of evaporative cooling and/or mechanical cooling to kitchen/living areas  Significant progress in green infrastructure development at a dwelling and master-plan level  Re-assess dwellings under improved/updated climate predictions for 2050 to validate or revise impact of adaptation measures In the long term, through to the 2050s and beyond mechanical cooling is likely to be required under extreme weather conditions for living spaces and kitchens and a comprehensive green infrastructure strategy should be in place across the development. To develop the adaptation strategy for thermal comfort, the impact of the above measures on overheating risk in the three building types was tested individually and in combination in three different adaptation packages, as set out in Figure 5.

Solar control glazing

Package 1: Passive option Stack ventilation Supply air pre-cooling (earth tubes)

Solar control glazing

External shutters Package 2: Mechanical option Mechanical ventilation rate increase

Evaporative cooling

Solar control glazing

Thermal mass (with night cooling) Package 3: Thermal mass option Reflective internal blinds

Evaporative cooling

Figure 5: Adaptation packages for thermal comfort

The packages tested differ in terms of deliverability and complexity. Package 1 is considered a passive option, where there is little ‘active’ operation or management required by building occupants. The stack measure, although potentially limited in terms of comfort performance past the 2030 climate, is technically simple to integrate into a typical house although extra detailing may be required during design and construction at roof/attic level. Use of earth tubes to pre-cool incoming air is technically simple and likely to be financially viable where significant volumes of dwellings are built. Solar glazing aside, all of the package 1 measures are likely to be difficult to retrofit in future, because they are integral to the structure and fabric of the building. As a result it would be more technically feasible and financially viable to build in these measures from the outset rather than retrofit them in the future. Package 2 focuses on ‘active’ options that relate both to occupant-controlled external shading and use of mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR) in a way that is adapted to reduce overheating risk. Key to this is a combination of increases in supply air flow rate and use of evaporative cooling. This case assumes that future advances in ventilation technology will deliver MVHR systems that can deliver higher flow rates of air without compromising unit/duct size, acoustics and fan power (energy consumption). Of the packages tested this appears to be the most effective in terms of meeting the comfort temperature criterion as most of the spaces will comply against the 2030 climate case and some spaces (bedrooms and some living spaces) will comply against the 2050 median climate case. The mechanical ventilation measures should be considered in terms of future-proofing dwellings for adopting these measures at the 2030 stage. These may include allowing additional space (for example in the roof space as opposed to kitchen cupboards) for a larger unit to be added at a later date, easy access to the MVHR unit, and potentially additional space (e.g. in ceiling voids) for increasing duct size. Package 2 also allows occupants to maintain a certain degree of control over their environment, allowing good potential for adaptive thermal comfort. Modifications to MVHR systems to incorporate an element of evaporative cooling are likely to require additional space at the MVHR unit itself, or a connection to external space (through roof or wall elements, for example) to increase the evaporative cooling effect.

Package 3 includes the use of thermal mass with night cooling, with some degree of limiting solar radiation penetration and evaporative cooling. This option relies on a high level of occupant awareness and control over their environment through lowering and raising of internal blinds during peak periods of solar gain and assisting the ‘recharge’ of the thermal mass elements during periods of low air temperature during the night. The results suggest that this package is limited in reducing the risk of overheating compared to Package 2 for dwellings where heavyweight elements are limited, such as the detached and semi-detached house types considered in this study. The barn dwelling has a higher overall application of heavyweight construction elements which improve the effectiveness of this measure. This package could however be considered appropriate for construction of dwellings at present as use of heavyweight construction in place of lightweight is technically feasible and robust. Additional thermal mass could be added as a retrofit measure through the use of phase change materials as the impacts of climate change increase and phase change materials become more common and cost-effective in the market. Although the general principles of phase change materials are well understood, additional investigation of a more appropriate way of applying phase change materials, such as wall panels, ceiling tiles or floor tiles and the associated impact should be carried out to determine a better understanding of their overall benefit. This package of measures provides benefit to the occupants in terms of the degree of control over their environment, allowing the impacts of adaptive thermal comfort to be considered. The use of internal blinds will contribute to adaptive thermal comfort (as well as protection from visual discomfort caused by glare) despite their limited contribution to meeting the operative temperature comfort criteria requirements. Analysis of the baseline case, each adaptation measure and three packages of measures for the 2050 90th percentile weather tape show that the overheating criteria cannot be met at 2050 90th percentile and there is a significant risk of overheating. It is therefore recommended that under the near extreme future climate projections, it is likely that an active mechanical cooling may be unavoidable, using high efficiency air conditioning or heat pumps.

3.1.2. Construction Recommendations for adapting the construction of the buildings, specifically the foundations and the building superstructure, were provided by Capita Symonds in their Technical Report on Construction Standards (see Appendix 3.2). Their recommendations are summarised below. Foundations A number of options have been considered for foundation design:  Traditional mass concrete and ground beams  Deeper mass concrete and ground beams  Basement box  Piles and ground beams  Deep raft option Further detail is provided in Appendix 3.7 for each of these options. Each of the different foundation designs would have advantages for different sub-areas of Oakham North Phase 1, due to the variations in ground conditions across the site. The assessment of foundation suitability has been undertaken on the basis of information provided in the Ground Conditions chapter of the Environmental Statement for Oakham North.xv

The area of the site on which Phase 1 will be built is traversed by a stream running west to east, has numerous unknown existing building foundations and a large number of semi mature or mature trees. The Environmental Statement states that localised soft ground, in the form of alluvial silts and clays can be expected and underlying this the ground is expected to comprise of variable ground with clays and silts. In these variable ground conditions piled foundations are likely to be the most appropriate option, with deep raft foundations also being appropriate further away from the stream. A basement box foundation is unlikely to be suitable due to high groundwater levels and flows. The land directly to the north of the Phase 1 site is currently greenfield land, except for an old quarry. There are isolated semi mature or mature trees in the area and partially filled-in former ponds. The south eastern boundary has a well-established tree lined field boundary. The Environmental Statement states that ground conditions here generally comprise of highly plastic Upper Lias clays, and in those areas remote from trees appropriate foundation options would include deeper mass concrete and beam foundations, a basement box or a deep raft foundation. Where existing trees are within one times the mature tree height of any part of the building, a basement box, piled or deep raft foundation would all be appropriate. In the area of the quarry and old ponds Option 4 is likely to be the most appropriate foundation option as the made ground may vary considerably in depth over short distance and Option 4 can allow for such rapid variation. The area directly to the south of the Phase 1 site is underlain by the Marlstone Rock Bed and, where this is close to the surface, traditional mass concrete and beam foundations or a deep raft are most appropriate. A basement box foundation is unlikely to be feasible or appropriate here as ground water levels and flows can be expected to be high. Building superstructure The building superstructure for the houses built at Oakham North will be timber framed, in line with Larkfleet’s base construction model. Where residential properties are built with timber there are considerable advantages with regards to the loads applied to the foundation, the amount of embodied carbon (assuming the timber is supplied from sustainable resources), speed of construction and cost. A masonry wall compliant with current thermal performance requirements likely weighs in at around 4kN/m2 compared to under 1kN/m2 for the equivalent rendered timber panel construction. Given a construction height of 4.5m for a two storey house this would reduce foundation loads by 1.35tonnes per metre of foundation length and thus would potentially reduce the cost of a piled and beam option as the piles would not be carrying as a high a load and could be shorter or wider spaced to ensure the efficient use of the connecting ground beam and reduction in overall pile numbers. Timber construction is often combined with a single skin external masonry cladding that nullifies the weight advantage illustrated. Given a render or timber cladding finish the advantage remains. The masonry dressing placed in front of the timber frame has a largely cosmetic function. There are also advantages with fire resistance, where the fire is external, and a small thermal advantage. Noise transmission may also be reduced and longer term weathering resistance may be improved. The wall may be constructed of rendered blockwork or an externally expressed brick finish. The masonry will be dependent upon the timber structure for strength and stability. Where the residential property is to be built with traditional brick walls, lime mortars are recommended if the foundation is expected to move gradually with time. Lime mortars, unlike cement mortars, are less brittle and can accommodate gradual movement without cracking. Lime mortar has been traditionally considered to have an advantage over a cement based render in accommodating movement. As cracking is less of an issue with lime mortar, water is less likely to collect behind the render and therefore damp tends to be less of a problem than in a traditionally

constructed building. Timber buildings with a flexible cladding, e.g. timber sheathing, can accommodate much more movement.

3.1.3. Managing water Surface water drainage The surface water drainage strategy for Oakham North had already been agreed prior to the commencement of the D4FC project. The work was undertaken by Wormald Burrows, who have been engaged as part of this study to review the design in light of the available information about climate change projections. Their findings are presented in the Managing Water Technical Report, which is provided in Appendix 3.3. Guidance on designing to mitigate flood risk is provided by the Environment Agency, and meeting these requirements is supported by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) with the design criteria set out in the associated Technical Guidancexvi. It requires the annual flow rate probabilities up to and including the 1% annual probability (1 in 100 year event) the rate of surface water runoff from the developed site into a watercourse should be no greater than the undeveloped or “greenfield” rate of runoff for the same event, and that no dwelling should be subject to flooding. The calculation of greenfield runoff from the study site at Oakham has been agreed with the Environment Agency as 5 l/s per hectare. Thus for this site, comprising an area of approximately 4.8 hectares, a maximum runoff rate of 24 l/s should be applied. The purpose of this is to retain a natural flow regime in the receiving watercourse and not increase peak rates of flow for events exceeding the 1% annual probability. In discussing the surface water drainage system based upon current design criteria it is necessary to consider three annual probabilities:  100% annual probability (1 in 1 year event)  3.33% annual probability (1 in 30 year event), and  1% annual probability (1 in 100 year event) The 1 in 1 year event is the highest probability event, ensuring that flows to the watercourse are tightly controlled for the more frequent events. The 1 in 30 year event is significant to our design because the water authority that will adopt the sewers, Anglian Water, requires that surface water sewers should be capable of carrying the 3.33% annual probability event within the system without causing flooding to any part of the site.xvii As aforementioned, the Environment Agency requires that in extreme storm events such as the 1 in 100 year event, the site layout and drainage design should be such that internal property flooding does not occur. For these more extreme events, the capacity of the surface water sewers may be inadequate, and the additional runoff generated should be disposed of by way of infiltration, or if this is not feasible due to soil type, then an attenuation solution should be provided, with a control device fitted such as a hydro-brake to restrict the flows to the agreed peak rate of discharge, ie 24 l/s for this site. The surface water drainage system for Oakham North Phase 1 has been designed to ensure that these requirements can be achieved, while allowing for an additional 30% rainfall volume on top of the current peak to account for the impacts of climate change. The use of SUDS is promoted and where viable, the design utilises soakaways in rear gardens of the new development, to which runoff is directed from private roof areas and driveways. Soakaway test results reveal good infiltration results over the majority of the site, however in the northern part, closer to the Brook, soakaway results are poor. In this area, the use of soakaways would not be viable. In accordance with ‘Building Regulations’ and ‘BRE Digest 365 – Soakaway Design’, soakaways have to be located at least 5 metres away from building foundations. This is to prevent

the saturation of foundations and any potential reduction in bearing capacity of the surrounding soils, which could cause settlement. In the event that piled foundations are used, an assessment of the impact on soil properties can be made by the structural engineer in deciding if soakaways can be positioned closer. Although the local highway authority, Rutland County Council, agreed to the use of soakaways for runoff from the main (adopted) roads, it proved difficult to locate them in public areas, whilst maintaining a 5m distance from buildings. Consequently, porous paving was considered for the main (adoptable) roads and discussions held with Rutland County Council confirmed that they would be willing to adopt this form of construction. The developer, Larkfleet Homes, subsequently carried out a costing exercise to compare porous paved roads against a traditional road and sewer system. The results for this particular site showed that porous paving was not as cost effective, when compared to a more conventional road and sewer system. Hence, surface water runoff from road areas would be positively drained and attenuated, prior to being discharged into the Brook at the allowable rate of discharge agreed with the Environment Agency. In addition, the design of the site also allows for flood routing, so that in an extreme flood event, excess runoff or flood water would not be obstructed by the new development, but instead be able to follow a natural flow path to the brook. This is demonstrated by the floor levels of the proposed houses being carefully designed and set above road levels to reduce the risk of flooding to any properties. Also, road levels and alignments are designed to direct excess runoff from the carriageways towards the open space areas and the lower lying watercourse. Water efficiency In the UK, the average person uses approximately 160 litres of water per day. In order to ensure that future water resources are sufficient to meet demand, people will need to use less water. For new housing at Oakham North, recommended options for encouraging more efficient use of water include:  Fitting water meters to make householders aware of the amount they use and relate costs directly to usage  Low flow taps  Low flow showers  Low volume dual flush toilets  Reduced volume baths  More efficient appliances if provided Installing a water meter is estimated to reduce domestic water consumption by around 10% on average. Low flow fittings and appliances should be considered as a minimum standard for Oakham North, enabling the development to comply with its Code for Sustainable Homes target in addition to support adaptation to climate change. Low flow fittings can provide savings of between 20 and 25% for most uses including toilet flushing, showers, taps and appliances, with little compromise to the perceived quality of service. Further savings, up to around 40 to 50%, can be made by using extremely low flow fittings and appliances. However, some users will perceive a reduction in the quality of service where these are fitted, which may encourage future residents to remove and replace fittings with higher flow devices. These are therefore not recommended. In addition, water efficiency could be further improved by incorporating systems for rainwater harvesting or grey water re-use. If a water recycling system can be implemented on the study site to provide an alternative source of water for general household use, this will help to reduce the reliance on the public water mains. A successful water recycling solution could provide the new

development with further resilience to climate change in response to the projected summer water shortages, and provide an example of how water recycling systems can benefit other future development sites. In rainwater harvesting systems, rainwater is collected and stored in a tank and then pumped on demand to dedicated supply points like toilets, washing machines, garden taps. If using water collected from roofs only, this water recycling solution can provide around 30% of domestic water consumption. In addition to reducing mains water use, it can also reduce surface water run-off as part of a SUDS scheme. As a more cost-effective solution, rainwater butts can be installed in gardens for outdoor use. Grey water recycling systems collect water from baths, showers and basins for use in toilet flushing and, in some cases, washing machines or outdoor irrigation. The water is filtered and treated, and as a result more energy is used in grey water recycling than rainwater harvesting. The tanks needed for storage tend to be smaller than in rainwater systems, because supply is more predictable and better matched to demand. Grey water re-use systems are able to save around 30% of domestic water demand if just used to flush toilets, or up to 45% if used for toilets and washing machines.

3.1.4. Green infrastructure Effective, well design and well maintained green infrastructure is essential to the adaptation strategy for Oakham North. Green infrastructure will have an important role in providing a comfortable living environment, managing water resources, maintaining stable ground conditions across the site and providing green spaces and corridors to enable local habitats and species to adapt to climate change. Trees in particular can have a significant impact on climate resilience. As part of this study, a technical report has been prepared on the role of trees in the urban environment in terms of mitigation and adaptation to climate change, and how they can be incorporated in new development to maximum effect. The report, Review of Existing Research on Trees and Climate Change, LDA Design (2012), is provided in Appendix 3.4. As the effects of climate change become better understood, it is becoming increasingly clear that one of the best ways to make towns and cities more hospitable over the next few decades is to increase the number and size of trees in urban areas. Over 80% of the UK’s population live in urban areas and trees have been identified as being an essential element of any urban climate change adaptation strategy. Trees in and around built up areas, known as ‘urban forests’, are being recognised as a key component of the infrastructure that not only makes place work, but look and feel better too. Whilst providing shade for buildings and streets, trees also increase evapo-transpiration and help to reduce local air temperatures as a result. During rainfall, tree canopies reduce the rate at which water reaches the ground, and thus slow the rate at which the water enters the drains. This gives the drainage system more time to distribute surface water away from the site, reducing the likelihood of flooding. This can be particularly effective as part of a SUDS strategy, which should also include infiltration measures and water storage on-site where appropriate (for details of the proposed drainage strategy see section 3.1.3). It is also important to note that trees are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. In particular, varying water availability, changes in soil moisture, heat stress and increasing risks associated with pests and diseases can all affect the health and lifespan of trees. This element of the adaptation strategy for Oakham North has therefore been developed to maximise the resilience of trees planted across the site. Enhancing ecological resilience to diseases and climate change requires a highly diverse local tree population. This is important to consider both at the species and genetic level.

Research suggests that diversity of species in terms of mix, age, genetics and management is a more sustainable strategy for successful implementing trees into the urban environment. Tree species that are considered to be suitable for use on the Oakham North development and relatively resilient to the foreseeable climate conditions have been identified and are listed in Appendix 3.8. This diverse range of species forms a palette from which trees can be selected for the development. Note that this list is not exhaustive and other species may also be suitable for specific locations and requirements. As trees generally form the dominant elements of the long-term landscape structure of a site, careful consideration needs to be given to their ultimate height and spread, form, habit and colour, density of foliage and maintenance implications, in relation to both the built form of the new development, and the retained landscape features. Where tree retention or planting is proposed in conjunction with nearby construction, the objective should be to achieve a harmonious relationship between trees and structures that can be sustained in the long term. The good practice recommended in this British Standard is intended to assist in achieving this objective. There are both benefits and constraints to planting trees early on in the development process. Simply put, the earlier the tree in taken into consideration within the design process and is planted; the longer it has time to for considered as part of the whole design and to establish itself. However, implementing trees early in the design will provide some compromises with other services and functions within the design. Also, during the construction phase, great care is required to ensure the protection of the tree – the larger the tree, the greater the potential restriction on the construction activities on site. New planting should normally be selected and located to ensure that adequate space is allowed for future growth of root systems, stems and canopies to maturity, without this causing direct physical contact with or damage to nearby structures, or causing obstruction of access, light or other avoidable nuisance. Exceptions could include planned short-term planting. On shrinkable clay soils, account should be taken of the risk of subsidence that might be caused or exacerbated by new planting removing moisture from load-bearing soils. The foundation construction and condition of existing structures, especially on shrinkable clay soils, should be a determining factor when taking decisions on species and location for new plantings, to minimize subsidence risks and to seek compatibility between structures and trees.

3.2. Timescales In terms of implementation timescales, it is essential that the priority measures which are fundamental to the design and layout of the development are integrated from the outset, as the cost and practical implications of retrofitting them are prohibitive. For Oakham North these include:  Resilient foundation designs  Surface water drainage systems  Green infrastructure To ensure that green infrastructure is sufficiently mature to provide tangible benefits to the development from the time of the first occupation, advanced planting of trees in relevant parts of the site has been recommended to Larkfleet. A number of other measures are practical to implement from the outset, provide an immediate benefit to residents, and have been recommended for immediate installation in the new homes at Oakham North (Figure 6). Alongside these we have listed measures which are not necessary under the short term climate projections and are not currently considered viable for this development, but may be retrofitted in future as and when the need is demonstrated. The 2030 and 2050 timeframes

are realistic, as it is likely that most mechanical equipment and water fittings will be replaced every 20 years or more frequently. It was felt that that there is insufficient confidence about long term climate projections or knowledge about the technologies that could be available in future to be able to advise on what adaptation measures should be retrofitted in the 2080s.

Recommended adaptation measures

Now New-build homes Designing for comfort • Locate high heat gain spaces such as kitchens on north or eastern elevations • Use open plan spaces to enhance cross ventilation • Use thermal mass with night cooling where feasible • Fit simple shading devices, especially west and south orientations and rooms where heat gains and occupancy levels are high, such as living rooms and kitchens. External shuttering preferred to simple internal blinds if viable • Fit mechanical ventilation with heat recovery or ensure sufficient space for future installation, including an allowance for larger ventilation ducts • Educational material on climate change and how behaviour affects thermal comfort Construction • Design-in resilient foundations Managing water • Install good practice low water-use fittings and water meters • Provide rainwater butts for outdoor irrigation • SUDS Green infrastructure • Green infrastructure for individual buildings (e.g. green roofs, green garden space) and communal areas, including trees Retrofit to existing homes  N/A as this is a new site.

Recommended adaptation measures

2030s New-build homes • Re-assess dwellings under improved/updated climate predictions for 2050 to validate or revise impact of adaptation measures Designing for comfort • Include phase change materials in specification of dwellings as financial viability increases • External blinds or shuttering on west and south orientations • Earth tubes or evaporative cooling Managing water • Install best practice very low water use fittings • Provide rainwater harvesting or greywater recycling Retrofit to existing homes Designing for comfort • Install more advanced shading devices eg external shutters if not already in place • Retrofit phase change materials in rooms where overheating a problem • Retrofit improved mechanical ventilation, with evaporative cooling and/or mechanical cooling to kitchen/living areas where needed Managing water • Retrofit best practice very low water use fittings

2050s New-build homes Designing for comfort • Significant levels of solar shading and mechanical ventilation • Mechanical cooling for vulnerable house types and homes in higher density urban areas Retrofit to existing homes Designing for comfort • Retrofit mechanical cooling for living spaces and kitchens Managing water • Retrofit rainwater harvesting or greywater recycling Figure 6: Recommended timescales for adaptation strategy

3.4. Cost benefit analysis Larkfleet Homes have advised that the base construction cost for the homes in Phase 1 of the Oakham North development is around £1,000 per sq. m. including prelims (site overheads), general overheads, profit, professional fees, plot drainage, fencing and an allowance for communal areas. This base construction cost assumes that the homes are built to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes level 3 and compliance with the Building Regulations Part L (2010), before the adaptation strategy is taken into account. It is comparable to the base construction costs considered in the published analysis of the costs of achieving the various levels of the Code for Sustainable Homes.xviii The additional cost of implementing the measures recommended in the adaptation strategy has been estimated by quantity surveyors at Capita Symonds. Their detailed report is provided as a separate document alongside this report (see Appendix 3.5). The conclusions of their analysis are as presented in Figure 7 for each of the house types considered.

£80,000

£70,000

£60,000 Shading: External electric blind (extra) Shading: Transparent reflective blind (extra) Shading: Solar reflective blind (extra) £50,000 Shading: Standard internal blind Glazing: Low-G inward opening windows Ventilation: Mechanical cooling (extra) £40,000 Ventilation: Mechanical ventilation with heat recovery Ventilation: Stack with rooflight Reflective lining under roof £30,000 Increased ceiling height Increased thermal mass of partitions and party walls Foundations: Basement box (extra) £20,000 Foundations: Piles and ground beams (extra) Foundations: Raft footing Additional cost compared to standard construction £10,000

£0 Detached Semi-detached Barn Figure 7: Range of additional costs for adaptation strategy compared to base construction cost

Where more than one option is available for adaptation, including foundation design and shading, the incremental additional cost for each enhanced option has been indicated by a shaded area in Figure 7. For example, the additional cost of the raft footing foundations option compared to the base construction case is estimated at £4,800 for the detached home whereas the full cost of the basement box foundation for the same house type is estimated at £37,800. Taking into account the optional items in the adaptation strategy, the minimum additional cost per dwelling of installing the adaptation measures outlined in Figure 7 would be £16,365 for the detached dwelling, which represents an increase of around 16% compared to the base construction cost of achieving Code 3 and Building Regulations Part L (2010) compliance. This would provide for the basic raft footing foundations, increased thermal mass, increased ceiling heights, stack ventilation, reflective lining under roof, low-G glazing and standard internal blinds.

If the highest specification options were implemented from the above list the maximum over-cost per detached home would be £73,500 based on the cost analysis, or an increase of 68% compared to base construction costs. This would provide for the basement box foundations, increased thermal mass, increased ceiling heights, stack ventilation, mechanical ventilation and heat recovery with cooling, reflective lining under roof, low-G glazing and electronically controlled external blinds. The impact on construction costs is similar for the other house types. The most significant elements of the above costs are the enhanced foundation options, the mechanical ventilation and cooling, and the external shading devices. While these are the most expensive items, they also provide the greatest benefits in terms of ensuring that the homes are resilient and well adapted to the long term impacts of climate change. Of these, the mechanical ventilation and cooling systems, and the external blinds are not considered to be essential in today’s climate and they can be retrofitted at a later date when the need becomes more apparent, provided sufficient space is provided and the structural design of the property allows for future retrofit. This is therefore the recommended strategy for Oakham North. The advantage of providing for the most expensive foundation option, the basement box, would be the provision of additional living or storage space in the basement which could add to the value of the properties. However, it has not been possible to quantify the value uplift which could be realised in this way and a basement box would not be feasible for a number of homes on the site due to groundwater levels and ground conditions. If the piled foundations are used this would reduce the additional cost to £64,150, but without the benefit of the additional space. Both of these foundation options have the potential to ensure that major repair or remedial works are not required in future, which could in turn have a beneficial impact on insurance costs in the short to medium term, although it has not been possible to quantify this. Foundations can be modified to some extent in future, but some options may be infeasible or unviable due to the extent of the works required, and remedial works such as underpinning could be prohibitive. On the positive side, some of the foundation options outlined here would only be recommended on parts of the site where there are clay soils, which does not apply to the whole of Phase 1 at Oakham North. Site-wide infrastructure and external adaptation measures including the SUDS strategy and green infrastructure were already incorporated into the masterplan for Oakham North, and are not considered to be additional cost items compared to the base construction case. In addition, the installation of low-flow water efficient fittings has not been included in these costs as it would be necessary with or without the adaptation strategy to enable the Code for Sustainable Homes target to be achieved for the site. While there are expected to be tangible benefits to future occupants as a result of implementing the above measures, there are not expected to be any direct revenue streams associated with any of the additional cost items described above. In addition, there is no evidence currently available to suggest that housebuyers will be willing to pay more for the homes as a result of implementing the adaptation strategy. The main drivers for buyers of new homes are often ability to buy, price, ability to secure an attractive mortgage deal and location, so adaptation is not a sufficient priority at present to influence values. It is therefore not possible to calculate a payback for any of these items, or to demonstrate a positive cost-benefit analysis in monetary terms from the perspective of the developer, unless the measures implemented today are cost neutral, such as private outdoor green space and trees which add clear value to the development, or unless they are an essential part of the basic infrastructure and construction specification for the site which is necessary to obtain regulatory compliance or planning approval, such as appropriately designed SUDs. The case for designing for future climate is strong. Buildings and infrastructure have a long lifespan and homes built today will, in many cases still be around in 50 years or more. They are built to suit

the current climate and do not take account of the way in which a different climate might affect its performance. As a result, the impacts of climate change can make buildings uncomfortable, unsafe or even commercially unviable to maintain. Alternative approaches to construction are often more expensive and, particularly with current pressures on development viability, are not pursued where they can be avoided. In light of this, we have prioritised adaptation measures that are either economically viable to install from the outset or cost effective to retrofit. Adaptation measures can avoid significant costs in future. This must be reconciled with the commercial realities of development, where there is pressure to keep build costs down. This requires a creative approach to developing adaptation strategies, focusing on measures which improve the overall quality of new development through the multiple social, environmental and economic benefits which can provide. For example, increasing the amount of urban greenery, particularly trees, can help absorb floodwater and can help make buildings and public spaces more comfortable in hot weather. They can help improve air and water quality, and encourage use of public spaces, all while adding to the value of nearby homesxix. A growing evidence base indicates that trees are a cost effective way of bringing benefits to the environment, to individual people and to society as a whole. Current research is exploring methods for quantifying the value of trees in terms of additional gains such as human health, well-being and crime reduction, but it is not yet at a stage where it is possible to identify a specific monetary value to use in cost benefit analysis for Oakham North. One of the weaknesses of cost-benefit analysis is that it does not prioritise the non-monetary benefits of climate change adaptation or those which are more difficult to quantify. These are sometimes more important to the occupants of the development and other stakeholders but do not accrue to the developer, such as improved health and well-being. Related to this, there may be a difference between who incurs the costs of adaptation and who reaps the benefits, or vice versa, depending on when adaptation measures are implemented during construction or retrofitted at a later date. If all of the benefits of adaptation accrue to future residents of the site and other stakeholders such as the local authority or water company, and these do not result in higher demand for the properties or higher sales values, there is little incentive for the developer to invest unless compelled to do so by planning policy or regulation. To illustrate this point, the following table provides a broad overview of some of the monetary and non-monetary costs and benefits of the different adaptation options and identifies, where possible, who pays and who benefits.

Adaptation option Costs Benefits

Building fabric and  Higher build cost for developer  Improved thermal comfort for services measures to occupier  Ongoing running costs for reduce overheating mechanical ventilation/ cooling  Reduction in heat-related deaths and illnesses  Maintenance costs for owner/occupier

Sustainable drainage  Higher build cost for developer  Reduced risk of flooding for systems (SUDS) owner/occupier  Maintenance costs for owner/occupier, developer may  Potential savings in insurance contribute to this as commuted premiums for owner/occupier, sum up-front improves ability to insure property  Reduced impact on flood risk in wider catchment area

Water-efficient  Potential higher build cost for  Lower water bills for occupiers fittings and water developer, could be cost-neutral where supplies metered metering  Ongoing running costs for  Reduced risk of drought to owner/occupier of water recycling owner/occupier and wider if used catchment area  Maintenance costs for owner/occupier

Alternative  Higher build cost for developer  Higher property value for developer foundation design only if basement box option used  Improved long term structural resilience for owner/occupier  Potential savings in insurance premiums for owner/occupier

Green  Potential higher build cost for If well designed/maintained offers infrastructure, developer, could be cost-neutral following benefits to owner/occupiers particularly trees and the environment:  Maintenance costs for owner/occupier, developer may  Improved appearance of the contribute to this as commuted development sum up-front  Ecological benefits  Improved thermal comfort  Reduced surface water run-off  Climate resilient landscaping, with reduced maintenance and irrigation requirements  Potential increase in property values Table 1: Overview of some costs and benefits of adaptation options

3.5. Recommendations implemented and barriers to implementation It has not been possible to implement most of the measures recommended in the adaptation strategy for houses in Phase 1 of Oakham North due to the advanced stage in the planning, design and development process, although there is greater scope for adaptation in future phases. The following sections set out which of the measures recommended in the adaptation strategy will be implemented by Larkfleet, together with a summary of the barriers to implementation where applicable.

3.5.1. Designing for comfort  Locate high heat gain spaces such as kitchens on north or eastern elevations and use open plan spaces to enhance cross ventilation: This will be achieved where feasible in future phases of Oakham North, within the constraints of fixed aspects of site layout and standard house form.  Use thermal mass with night cooling: The standard specification for a timber framed superstructure will not be changed to increase structural thermal mass. Materials to increase the thermal mass of the property, such as phase change plasterboard panels, is not expected to be implemented in any of the phases of Oakham North as they are not considered viable or cost- effective yet, and they can be retrofitted at a later date.  Fit simple shading devices: Internal blinds are not provided as standard with new homes, as these tend to be an element installed by the householders on the basis of their preferences. Larkfleet has confirmed that it will offer internal blinds to buyers as part of the package of fit-out options for houses in Oakham North Phase 1 and future phases of development.  Fit mechanical ventilation with heat recovery or ensure sufficient space for future installation: This is not proposed for homes in Oakham North Phase 1 at present or future phases. Larkfleet has installed several hundred MVHR units in homes on other sites, but they have stopped installing it in new homes at present in light of poor householder feedback. This includes perceptions that the ventilation unit is not working due to a lack of a visible or audible sign that it is functioning and that it must cost more money than natural ventilation if it is switched on all the time, and an inability to dry clothes in some rooms because of the high airtightness and low air change rates. Larkfleet have also had problems with some contractors not being experienced in installing MVHR, although no actual problems with the performance of the units once installed.

MVHR is being proposed for the social housing in the next phase of Oakham North, as the role of the Housing Association in managing tenant relationships and providing maintenance services is helpful in managing risk. In the longer term the Building Regulations are expected to drive installation of MVHR as standard to meet energy efficiency and carbon targets. Until it becomes a requirement to achieve the regulatory standards, there are no plans to install MVHR in market housing at Oakham North. Ducting for ventilation will not be installed to enable retrofit of MVHR in future, as it is a dead cost if not used and air-tightness standards would be lower than if the house were designed to use MVHR from the outset.  Educational material on climate change and how behaviour affects thermal comfort: Information about climate change impacts and adaptation will be provided as part of the homebuyers guide for all phases of Oakham North, including guidance on how to manage internal heat gains and maintain a comfortable indoor environment and a description of the water-efficiency features in the property.

3.5.2. Construction  Resilient foundations: Standard foundations designed to meet the regulatory requirements in place at the time will be used for houses in all phases of Oakham North, due to the high cost associated with implementing the alternative options explored here.

3.5.3. Managing water  Install good practice low water-use fittings and water meters: These will be installed as standard for the homes in all phases of Oakham North to enable them to achieve Code level 3 water targets.  Provide rainwater butts for outdoor irrigation: Rainwater butts will be offered to housebuyers in all phases of Oakham North as an optional extra as part of the fit-out.  SUDS: The SUDS system being implemented for all phases of development at Oakham North is expected to be sufficient to manage increased surface water run-off associated with more intense periods of rainfall projected to occur as a result of climate change. In addition, the masterplan for the development provides more green space than the area currently needed for surface water attenuation, so it should be possible to increase the attenuation volume further in future if needed. To ensure the strategy is effective in the long term, there is a need to make provision for the management of SUDS systems. Although the regime for SUDS and drainage system adoption is currently undergoing a period of change, it is expected that Rutland Council and Anglian Water will adopt SUDS at Oakham North and ensure their long term effectiveness, provided they are located in the public realm. Green infrastructure  Green infrastructure is an important element of the masterplan for Oakham North, including private gardens for individual buildings, communal areas with soft landscaping and tree planting across the site. The tree planting schedule for future phases of Oakham North is being changed to reflect recommendations from the adaptation strategy. Introducing more trees into the masterplan is considered to add to 'kerb appeal' of new homes, although Larkfleet will avoid some larger tree species which can cause problems such as blocking light and are not always desirable for potential residents. High quality landscape at the entrance to the site can also improve marketability. Good maintenance of green infrastructure is essential to ensure that this appeal is borne out in practice. In Oakham North, public open space will be adopted by a management company, to ensure that clear and affordable arrangements are in place for management, including trees in private gardens. This is intended to make the houses more attractive and give housebuyers the confidence that the site will be well looked after.

3.5.5. Barriers to implementation To sum up, the barriers to implementing some of the adaptation options which would otherwise contribute on a practical level to adaptation and climate resilience at Oakham North are as follows:  Inability to influence some aspects of site design: Some elements of site infrastructure have already been implemented or aspects of the design have been fixed, for example by planning conditions, including the layout of the site, the house types and built form, and the SUDS strategy.  Cost and development viability: the development business model is already challenging in the current economic climate and even when this improves it is likely that land value expectations will also rise to reflect increasing house prices. This means that there is insufficient capacity in the development budget to cover the significant uplift in construction costs associated with some adaptation measures unless investing in these things can be shown to lead directly to a corresponding uplift in market values.  Construction complexity, supply chain and fit with traditional construction techniques: Some of the adaptation measures create additional complexity in the construction process, rely on equipment or materials which are still in limited supply, or use construction techniques which not all contractors are able to offer. This can lead to problems with build quality, performance, maintenance and can act as an additional pressure on costs.  Lack of strong requirements for effective climate change adaptation in regulations and planning policy acts as a disincentive for developers to build in climate change resilience. This is because there are limited resources, other pressures on construction budgets, and financial disadvantages for those developers who go further than the minimum requirements. Implementing regulations which require a more proactive approach to adaptation would create a level playing, and potentially encourage a downward pressure on land values to create space in the development budget for the necessary measures.  Market appeal may be affected if housebuyers perceive a reduction in quality of living conditions or an increase in running costs associated with some of the adaptation measures, for example if homes are fitted with mechanical ventilation systems.  Lack of financial return for the developer: in general, while the measures set out in the adaptation strategy provide clear long term benefits to future occupants, society and the environment, they do not directly benefit the developer. House valuations do not yet show an uplift to reflect the benefits of climate resilience, as housebuyers are generally not felt to have a sufficient appreciation of the advantages and are either not willing or able to pay such premiums for it. In addition, unlike renewable energy technologies for example, most of the measures set out here do not generate an ongoing source of income which developers could capitalise on or attract third parties to invest in. This inability to realise the monetary value of the long term, wider benefits of adaptation make it very difficult to justify the upfront expense for the developer when there is no regulatory requirement or strong policy incentive either. The economic context remains challenging for development and construction progress at Oakham North has been slower than anticipated at the outset of this project as a result. To date, the show homes on Phase 1 have been built and 10 to 12 forward reservations have been taken. This has prevented occupant testing and feedback on the elements of the adaptation strategy that are to be implemented within the timescales of the D4FC project. In terms of the long term prospects for the scheme, some changes to the wider masterplan are anticipated for future phases of the development and some plots of land may be sold to other developers.

A more comprehensive range of adaptation measures will be implemented in future phases of the Oakham North development and on other Larkfleet Homes schemes, if some of the barriers described above can be overcome. Larkfleet will continue to monitor developments in the housing market and supply chain, and test new technologies and techniques. The factors Larkfleet will take into account when making decisions on the adaptation strategy for future phases of Oakham North and other development sites include:  What their competitors are doing on adaptation  Whether and when requirements are being introduced through regulations or planning policy  Whether the housebuyer sees value in it and proof that adaptation will have an impact on house prices  Monitoring what optional extras housebuyers are willing to pay for  Testing some technologies on a trial basis in show homes and monitoring performance  Feedback from housebuyers on the measures installed and the information provided in the homebuyers’ guide  Improvements in the technologies and products available on the market and reductions in cost, for example for phase change materials used to increase thermal mass

4.0 Learning from work on this contract

4.1. Summary of approach Our approach was designed to identify the potential impacts of climate change on the Phase 1 development at Oakham North and assess the options for adaptation. We used the available published information on climate projections and the associated risks to identify and prioritise key risks for the site, then undertook more detailed modelling to design and validate adaptation measures based on their contribution to risk reduction. Throughout the project we worked with the client to review the results, discuss the options and agree the adaptation strategy, culminating in the conclusions presented in this report. The approach can be broken down into the following stages:  Climate change risk assessment  Options appraisal  Detailed testing  Forming the strategy  Dissemination Each of these stages is described in further detail in the following sections.

4.1.1. Climate risk assessment UKCP09 projections were used to understand the range of potential climate impacts relevant to Oakham and the surrounding area. A number of scenarios were selected to reflect the challenges facing the development, using the medium and high CO2 emissions scenarios at the 50th and 90th percentile to represent ‘average’ and ‘extreme’ impacts in 2030 and 2050. In addition, information was collected about the development and the site context to enable vulnerabilities to be identified and the relevance of specific impacts to be understood. The UK Climate Change Risk Assessment was then used to identify the potential risks to the development, with particular reference to the Climate Change Risk Assessment for the Built Environment Sector.x We used a risk matrix to assess the level of risk, taking into account the combination of likelihood of impact, vulnerability and consequences, and rank it as low, medium or high. This enabled us to draw conclusions and focus the options appraisal on the most important issues for the site.

4.1.2. Options appraisal Working with Larkfleet, we set out a baseline design for each of three standard house types which were typical of what would be built at Oakham North. Using these house types, we assessed the baseline level of climate change impacts before any specific adaptation measures were incorporated, in terms of the three categories of thermal comfort, construction, and water management. The baseline constructions were defined using Larkfleet’s standard practice, the requirements of the building regulations, and national and local planning policy. We then set out a range of adaptation options for improving thermal comfort, construction and water management at the building and site level, drawing on the Design for Future Climate guidance, our own expertise and understanding gained from recent research. For each category we considered:

 Whether existing standards already require measures which successfully mitigate risk, eg building regulations thermal comfort standards or planning requirements for flood risk management and surface water drainage  Whether there is the potential and the need to take these same measures further in order to reduce exposure to climate risk, e.g. specifying deeper strip footings at low additional cost  Whether responding to climate change would require more innovative measures that go beyond current requirements and represent a more substantial change in dwelling design and construction, e.g. solar shading to meet more stringent overheating standards  Other options which could contribute to adaptation, including options that require action across or beyond the site boundary, or provide multiple benefits, such as green and blue infrastructure The above approach was based on the assumption that looking to expand on existing design features first would help in identifying options that are more likely to be lower cost, avoid unnecessary complexity and are likely to be more relevant to the wider industry.

4.1.3. Detailed testing We tested the effectiveness and viability of the range of adaptation options on the three dwelling types. The options were tested for effectiveness in mitigating climate risk, cost, deliverability and the implications for the end user, such as maintenance or insurance. Where options were likely to be too expensive in the short term, options which could be retrofitted in future were considered. Detailed analysis was undertaken by specialists in thermal comfort, construction, water management, green infrastructure, and quantity surveying. The approach was as follows:  Thermal comfort: The adaptation options were assessed using IES dynamic thermal simulation software, which allows a detailed thermal comfort and overheating analysis to be carried out taking into account shading, thermal mass, ventilation effects and the impact of other innovative features. Weather data files created by Exeter University under the PROMETHEUS programme were used for building thermal analysis, to assess the performance of each of the three building types in future climate scenarios.

We assessed internal options including changes to the thermal mass, fenestration, glazing and internal layout. We also assessed the impact of external options on internal comfort, particularly building and landscape based shading features.  Construction: The impact of climate change on soil stability was assessed by geotechnical and structural engineers and suitable alternative design measures were identified, including deeper foundations, piling and construction options that allow for some movement in foundations without compromising the superstructure of the building. Reference was made to best practice for foundation design in other locations around the world where climate variability and extremes in soil moisture are more common and soil types are similar, including Australia.  Water management: The existing drainage strategy for the site was assessed to determine whether it would be sufficient to meet the necessary surface water run-off targets for the site and prevent surface water flooding during projected extreme rainfall events. This was conducted using hydraulic modelling software and rainfall data derived from UKCP09’s weather generator. This analysis took into account the role of dedicated SUDS features and the multifunctional role of the public realm, including the use of car parking areas or the site’s allotments for water storage. Water efficiency measures were also assessed in terms of their potential to contribute to demand management and their appropriateness for the development.

 Green infrastructure: We tested a selection of trees for their ability to improve comfort, development value, and cope with the potential impacts of climate change. The relationship between tree planting near buildings and potential impacts on construction and sub-surface stability was also be explored. Recommendations were provided for a tree planting strategy for the site.  Commercial valuation: The additional over cost of the range of adaptation options compared to the baseline design of the three building types was assessed by a quantity surveyor. The potential for these measures to add value to the development either directly or indirectly was considered, for example through an increase in market valuation, or social or environmental benefits. Where options were considered to be too expensive to implement in Phase 1 of the development, we looked at the potential to introduce them over time. Details of the approach taken to analysis in each of these areas are provided in the technical reports provided alongside this document.

4.1.4. Forming the strategy The strategy set out in this document was formed through a process of ongoing dialogue between the client and the consultant team, to understand the risks, identify the options for adaptation and consider their suitability, applicability and viability for the development in light of the analysis undertaken. Central to this dialogue was a series of workshops with the client and the project team. These workshops considered:  Climate risks and options for adaptation  Approach to designing for thermal comfort, construction and water management and initial findings  The adaptation strategy and how it would be implemented at Oakham North Phase 1, future phases of development and applicability to other schemes Throughout the development of the strategy, the focus was on identifying options which could increase resilience to each of the key impacts without compromising the marketability of homes on the development.

4.1.5. Dissemination A range of activities have already been undertaken to disseminate the findings of this study, and these will continue beyond completion of the Design for Future Climate project. Dissemination activities completed to date include the following:  Project highlighted as an example of our ongoing work on climate change adaptation during training on climate change skills for local planning policy officers, at 6 sub-regional sessions delivered across the East of England, during December 2011 – January 2012, including reference to TSB and DFFC funding  Presentation by Rob Shaw on climate change adaptation at Ecobuild, 21 March 2012, focusing on our work at Oakham North and presenting early findings to development and construction professionals (provided in Appendix 4.3)  Interim report, submitted to TSB June 2012

 Presentation by Rob Shaw and Raphael Sibille to Defra's Adapting to Climate Change team, which included a case study on the Oakham North DFFC project and a discussion of findings (12 October 2012, see Appendix 4.4)  Findings used to inform advice provided to our clients on a range of projects, including using Oakham North as a case study for an eco-opportunities study completed for the new community north of Fareham, on behalf of Fareham Borough Council  Reference to Oakham North adaptation strategy work in a presentation on 14 June 2012 by Helen Pearce to the Eco Development Group, which brings together local authority leads for each of the Eco-town projects  Project used as an example of good practice in a CPD presentation on climate change mitigation and adaptation to design, planning and development professionals across LDA Design (December 2012)  Project has informed ongoing TCPA-led climate change training for Councillors in Yorkshire and Humber, for which Rob Shaw is one of the trainers  Completion of the final project report (August 2013)  Completion of a case study on the project (August 2013, see Appendix 4.5) Future dissemination activities will include:  Preparation of a joint press release by LDA Design, Capita Symonds and Larkfleet Homes, which will be promoted to various publications including Building Magazine, the Landscape Journal, and Capita Symonds’ client publication. Press release to be prepared late summer 2013 following completion of the case study. Publication date subject to sign-off from the various parties and acceptance by the publications.  The project will continue to inform LDA Design’s input on adaptation to the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) led Planning and Climate Change Coalition (PCCC), which comprises representatives from a range of organisations with an interest in climate change, spatial planning and planning policy including practitioners, policy makers and relevant NGOs. The coalition regularly briefs MPs and government ministers in relation to development of national policy and regulation. In particular, we will look to use the project findings where relevant in our input to the PCCC’s new adaptation working group, which launched in May 2013 Our ability to present at major conferences is limited by the general requirement to pay (sometimes substantial) sponsorship fees in order to secure a speaker slot, which are not covered by the D4FC dissemination budget. However, we will continue to look for suitable opportunities to present the project at conferences.

4.2. Project team The development of the adaptation strategy for Oakham North was led by LDA Design, which has a longstanding relationship with the client and prepared the Outline and Reserved Matters applications for the development as part of the core design team. LDA Design was supported in the development of the climate change adaptation strategy by four sub-consultants with specialist knowledge of building design and climate change adaptation:  rCOH – architects in the core design team for Oakham North, contributing intimate knowledge of the development and design of adaptation measures to the adaptation strategy

 Wormald Burrows – drainage engineers in the core design team for Oakham North, also responsible for reviewing the drainage and water management design proposals against climate change projections for the adaptation strategy  Buro Happold – experts in building physic and climate change adaptation, conducted analysis of thermal comfort for the adaptation strategy (not part of the core design team for Oakham North)  Capita Symonds – geotechnical and subsurface foundations experts responsible for advising on structural design and other construction issues, specialist sustainability quantity surveyors who assessed the cost and benefits of the recommended adaptation measures (not part of the core design team for Oakham North) LDA Design, rCOH and Wormald Burrows were all involved in the core design team for Oakham North as well as providing specialist input to the development of the climate change adaptation strategy. Buro Happold and Capita Symonds were not involved in the core design team, but were engaged by LDA Design to provide specialist input to the climate change adaptation strategy. Our client, Larkfleet Homes, participated in the development of the strategy by providing information about the development, feedback on the feasibility and viability of implementing the various adaptation options, and confirmation of which elements of the adaptation strategy would be implemented at Oakham North. A team organogram is provided in Appendix 4.1 along with a short biography for each of the key team members (Appendix 4.2).

4.3. Project plan In terms of the programme for the Oakham North development, the proposal at the outset of the D4FC project was for the entire scheme to include approximately 1,200 homes and a number of other uses to be built over 7 years. Phase 1, which includes 135 homes, was intended to commence construction with around six show homes in June 2012. This was intended to be used as an opportunity to test adaptation measures prior to any further roll out. The project plan for the D4FC project was designed to fit within this overall development programme. It is shown in the chart on the following page. Unfortunately, the adaptation strategy was completed after construction of show homes on the site commenced, which has made it difficult to incorporate and test measures in practice within the programme for this project. Larkfleet will continue to monitor developments in the housing market and supply chain, and test new technologies and techniques beyond the end of the D4FC project, prior to any larger roll out or change in their standard practice in future. This testing will include monitoring performance of items installed in show homes or market homes on a trial basis, obtaining housebuyer feedback, and monitoring which optional extras housebuyers are willing to pay for.

Figure 8: Project plan

4.4. Strengths and limitations of resources and recommended resources Below are key issues that have been encountered while attempting to gather information and which have, to a lesser or greater extent, limited the quality or extent of our analysis.  Met Officexxiii projections of extreme rainfall events are provided for selected cities and only for the medium emissions scenario. Data related to the high emissions scenarios would have been more consistent with the rest of our analysis.  Improved evidence of new extremes in rainfall events (beyond the 1 in 100 year event) would have contributed to our assessment of the credibility of the Environment Agency’s current flood guidance. The difficulty of providing this type of information is recognised.  Thermal modelling has been conducted using IES and the Prometheus weather tapes produced by Exeter University. It is not possible to accurately represent shading from trees and the impact of green infrastructure on internal temperatures using this software. No suitable alternative was identified.  The Prometheus weather files tapes are available up to the 2050s only. An assumption has been made that the 2050s 90th percentile is equivalent to the 2080s 50th percentile.  UKCP09 have acknowledged that projections of changes in wind speeds are unreliable. A lack Information on wind speeds and storms has limited our ability to model some potential construction issues and its potential contribution to increasing soil moisture deficits. Resources which were found to be particularly useful during the course of this project and area recommended for use in future work include:  The UK CP09 climate projections and the weather generator  Changes in the frequency of extreme rainfall events for selected towns and cities, Met Office (2010)  Climate Change Risk Assessment for the Built Environment Sector, Defra (2012)  Climate Change Risk Assessment, Annex A: Scenarios of climate variability and change, Defra (2012)  UK Climate Projections Briefing Report, Defra (2009)  Regionalised Impacts of Climate Change on Flood Flows, Defra and Environment Agency (2009)  Design for Future Climate, an Adaptation Agenda for the Built Environment, Bill Gething (2010)

4.5. Strengths and weaknesses of approach and recommended methodology In general, we found the approach taken to develop the adaptation strategy to be effective within the current context, particularly the current pressures on development viability, uncertainty in the climate projections, and the lack of a strong regulatory driver for climate change adaptation. We would recommend the methodology set out above to others, with the following caveats. The preparation of an adaptation strategy should start as early as possible in the development process, at the feasibility stage when a site is being considered if not before this during site selection. Our ability to influence the proposals for Oakham North Phase 1 was significantly limited as key decisions had already been made prior to our involvement. Fortunately some of the critical elements of site infrastructure, particularly the drainage strategy and green infrastructure proposals, were subsequently found to be sufficient to provide resilience to future climate based on the projections used in this study.

Related to this, we also found limitations as a result of working with standard house types which had already been fixed for the development. An adaptation strategy is likely to be more successful and affordable if there is flexibility to modify built form and fabric. A further challenge to our approach was the length and variability of the development programme for large sites. Although our D4FC project had a duration of almost two years, it was still found to be insufficient to be able to see the adaptation strategy through to practical on-site testing, implementation and occupant feedback, which would be instrumental in refining and delivering a successful adaptation strategy. Although it is important to recognise the wider benefits of adaptation and find a way to incentivise building in resilience from the outset of built development where possible, cost benefit analysis was found to be of limited use in the development of the adaptation strategy. This is because:  It is difficult to quantify many of the benefits of adaptation  They accrue to future occupants and other stakeholders potentially some years beyond the construction of the homes  These beneficiaries do not yet recognise the importance of climate change adaptation and are not willing to pay for it  As a result the developer has no way of recovering the costs of their investment

4.6. Influencing client decision-making The Larkfleet Group, our client and the developer of Oakham North, sees the business value in taking a lead in responding to the energy and climate change challenges. Through Lark Energy, another company within the Larkfleet Group, opportunities for supplying low carbon energy to the site are being explored, including the use of CHP and small-scale anaerobic digestion plants which generate biogas as a feedstock. Larkfleet expressed their commitment from the outset to the project and their willingness to be involved in developing the adaptation strategy and consider implementing its recommendations. They contributed to the design process in two principal ways. They participated in a series of workshops, which covered a presentation of the climate risks and adaptation response options to inform Larkfleet and help us confirm priorities, development of the adaptation strategy, agreeing how it would be taken forwards. In spite of the developer’s track record of being innovative and forward thinking, and their early engagement in the project, it has been challenging to provide a sufficiently convincing business case for investment in adaptation, and with good reason. The benefits of some adaptation measures will not be realised for some years, long after today’s new homes have been sold. Many homebuyers will not be aware of the long term implications of climate change and the importance of adaptation, and indeed may have moved on to other homes long before the effects really take hold. It is therefore unlikely that the costs of building more climate resilient homes will be recovered through an uplift in property values in the short term, unless the adaptation measures that are implemented provide tangible, wider benefits that are immediately obvious such as more attractive landscaping, more comfortable living spaces or demonstrably lower maintenance or insurance costs. In addition, unlike renewable energy technologies, most adaptation options do not provide an ongoing income stream which can be captured by the developer or a third party investor and used to offset upfront costs. This inability to recover the potentially significant additional development and construction costs associated with adaptation presents a significant challenge in encouraging developers to invest.

Regulation could drive more general application of these measures, as it creates a level playing field, and land values could be expected to go down to compensate, creating space within the development budget for adaptation. For this purpose, regulation would be a preferable mechanism to planning policy which can vary from one place to another. In addition, increasing recognition of the risks by insurance and mortgage brokers would help to influence developers – and housebuyers – to take climate resilience into account more substantively in their decision-making.

4.6.1. Decision making under uncertainty An effective climate change adaptation strategy needs to take account of the uncertainty implicit in projections of climate change and its consequences. The use of scenarios to illustrate a range of potential outcomes is well established as a way of making informed decisions in situations where there are multiple variables to take into account, long timeframes to consider, and uncertainty over the outcomes. To inform the adaptation strategy for Oakham North we have selected scenarios which set out a broad range of possible climate outcomes over a realistic timescale compared to the lifetime of the project, and which are based on credible and peer-reviewed research. Even with the use of scenarios however, considerable uncertainty remains regarding how climate change will play out and the actual range of impacts that will be encountered, due to the multiple interactions in the climate, ecosystems, society and the economy. This uncertainty, combined with scepticism and resistance from some stakeholders, makes effective decision-making challenging, particularly where decisions relate to the investment of substantial amounts of money and the construction of buildings and other infrastructure which will be in place for many years to come. A framework for decision making under uncertainty, used by the Committee on Climate Change Adaptation Sub-Committee, has been used as a guide. This led to the following principles being applied in determining the adaptation strategy for the development and agreeing the timescales set out above for implementation: 1) A resilient design should take advantage of no and low-regrets adaptation measures which provide a range of additional benefits or where they help to manage existing vulnerabilities, such as designing in water-efficient fittings which will reduce water bills and help to manage existing supply and demand constraints during periods of drought 2) Robustness measures should be incorporated which are effective under a range of possible climate outcomes, such as planting a diverse mix of tree species to increase resilience 3) Measures which increase flexibility create opportunities to respond to new information and increasing certainty in future, for example ensuring that there is space within dwellings for mechanical cooling to be fitted at a later date 4) Where flexibility is limited and potential risks high, adaptation measures should be designed in from the outset, for example in the case of surface water drainage strategy for the site In developing the adaptation strategy we have also been careful to avoid mal-adaptation, which could result where measures implemented now in the hope of reducing exposure to climate risk turn out to be unnecessary, ineffectual or even counterproductive.

5.0 Extending adaptation to other buildings The learning points from the adaptation strategy for Phase 1 of Oakham North should be relevant to future phases of development at Oakham North, similar projects undertaken by the client Larkfleet Homes and throughout the housebuilding sector – both at the building and urban development scale, provided the barriers raised in the sections above can be addressed. In addition, the lessons learnt will be carried forwards in the professional advice given on future projects by the consultant team engaged in this study.

5.1. Application of the strategy to other buildings

5.1.1. Future phases at Oakham North and other Larkfleet developments Larkfleet have committed to using the findings from the study to inform the landscape, public realm and buildings at Oakham North. The form and construction of houses built in later construction phases will be similar to those in Phase 1 and therefore could benefit from the lessons learned throughout this study. A number of the recommendations, especially those related to communal infrastructure, are unlikely to be suitable for incorporation into proposals for Phase 1 as the development is too far advanced, but it is hoped that it may be feasible to incorporate them where appropriate in later phases of development, which will comprise 1,065 additional homes.

5.1.2. Other housing development across the UK Oakham North is similar to other greenfield housing developments across the UK in terms of housing density, mix and size of the dwellings proposed, with the exception that homes are of timber frame construction rather than the more common masonry brick and block construction. Larkfleet specialises in timber frame buildings, and the homes at Oakham North are primarily designed using timber frame construction with brick cladding. According to the UK Timber Frame Association, over 25% of new homes in the UK use timber frame construction.xx Based on the latest government statistics, there were 146,500 new homes completed in the UK in the 2011-12 financial year,xxi which translates to around 36,625 new timber framed homes. There remains a gap between housing demand and supply of approximately 100,000 units per annum and supply is anticipated to increase as the market recovers. A growing proportion of this growth is expected to be of timber framed construction, due to its increasing use in delivering high energy efficiency, low-embodied carbon buildings. The foundation design options developed for Oakham North are likely to be applicable to other residential building projects where shrinkable clay foundation or stable rock is expected and detached homes are being constructed. The solutions may not be appropriate for terraces or blocks of residential flats without detailed assessment of the precise foundation conditions. Minor changes will be required for different geographic location in the United Kingdom as current guidance on climate change suggests that regional variations in climate may be more extreme in future than at present. To support and encourage uptake of the findings across the wider industry, each of the project partners will use their respective communications teams to support dissemination, as described in the section on our approach to dissemination, above.

5.1.3. Other projects involving the project team The study findings will influence the future working practices of the partners, helping each of the consultant teams to provide more effective advice to their clients and develop new areas of business. Each of the companies involved in the project is at the forefront of sustainable

masterplanning, landscape, public realm, engineering and development and we are increasingly being asked by clients for advice on how to reduce the risks associated with climate change. This project has been instrumental in raising our level of knowledge such that we can provide a confidence and comprehensive response to these requests.

5.2. Resources, tools and materials developed through this contract The tools and materials used in this project are listed in Section 4.4 of this report, which are all published resources developed by others. No specific resources, tools or materials have been developed by us through the course of this project which could be used directly in future work. The most significant resource developed through this contract has been the improvement in the level of knowledge, skills and understanding amongst the team involved in developing the adaptation strategy.

5.3. Further needs to be able to provide adaptation services No further needs have been identified to enable the consultants in the project team to provide adaptation services. The project team is already applying the lessons learned through this project in work that is being undertaken for other clients and sites. These projects include developing advice on climate change adaptation options for a major new development of over 7,500 homes and commercial uses north of Fareham, setting out the implications of climate change for communities across the Clwydian Range Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in North Wales, and working with communities in the Lower Ouse Valley in Sussex to help them develop a vision and action plan for adaptation to the long term impacts of climate change. We are also using the project findings to help influence and shape government policy and regulation. This includes working with the Town and Country Planning Association’s influential Planning and Climate Change Coalition to establish a new adaptation working group.

Appendix 0: Checklists

Appendix 0.1: Checklist 1: Report structure

Has the report been structured to answer the following questions (taken from the specification from Section 7):

1. What is your building profile? 

2. What is the risk exposure for your buildings/s to the projected future climate? 

3. What is the adaptation strategy for your building/s over their lifetime to improve  resistance and resilience to climate change and thus extend the commercial viability?

4. What is the best way to conduct adaptation work? 

5. How can this work be used to extend adaptation of other buildings? 

Appendix 0.2: Checklist 2: Report contents

Does Executive Summary contain summaries of Sections 1-5 

Section 1: Building profile

A description of the building/s associated with the adaptation project, including  projected usage, type, location and special features or aspects which will affect the resistance and resilience to climate change.

If your study proposal covers building/s within a larger development, please  describe the whole development.

Appendix 1 should include further comment, photographs/images of the  building and drawings of the building project.

Section 2: Climate change risks for this project

An assessment of the risk exposure of the building to the projected future  climate considering the design challenges around water, comfort and construction as listed in table 1 below.

Identification of the climate scenarios and climate data used in the design of this  building in terms of UKCP09 data. An explanation, including a discussion of risk exposure, of why these scenarios were selected.

Other features significant to the adaptation strategy developed. 

Appendix 2 should include relevant subsets of UKCP09 data, data relating to risk  exposure and the building project.

Section 3: Adaptation strategy

This should be the largest section of the report including

The adaptation strategy 

Timescales for your recommendations to implement relevant measures over the  lifetime of the building, including those listed in table 1. Triggers to invest in adaptation measures should be related to maintenance intervals, changes in regulations, cost effectiveness or environmental metrics.

Cost benefit analysis and risk mitigation of implementing these adaptation  measures.

Details of which recommendations are being implemented on this building and  any barriers to implementation.

Appendix 3 should include full quantity surveyor costs, redrafted drawings,  (see building control changes and valuations of the building incorporating the supplementary

recommended changes. It can also include further analyses and comment, reports attached) future-forecasting, drawings/images, specification of what products will be needed and data.

Section 4: Learning from work on this contract

A summary of your approach to the adaptation design work 

Who was involved in the work and what they brought to the project 

The initial project plan and how this changed through the course of the project. 

List the resources and tools you used and review their strengths and limitations 

Describe what worked well and what worked badly in your approach, and the  methodology you recommend others to use.

Decision making processes by the client on implementing recommendations  and what were the best ways to influence them?

List the resources you recommend others to use 

Appendix 4 should include a biography of each member of the project team who  was involved in the project and references for the recommended resources.

Section 5: Extending adaptation to other buildings

This short section should include:

An assessment of how this strategy, recommendations and analyses might be  applied to other buildings and building projects.

A description of the limitations of applying this strategy to other buildings. 

An analysis of which buildings across the UK might be suitable for similar  recommendations.

Resources, tools and materials you developed through this contract for N/A – covered in providing future adaptation services. other sections of the report where relevant

Further needs you have in order to provide adaptation services. 

Appendix 5 should include further analyses and comment, the sources of data N/A – references and calculations used to analyse the building stock relevant to this building provided within project. main body of text – no further detail to provide

Appendix 1: Further information on the building profile

Appendix 1.1: Elevations

Figure 9: Elevations for semi-detached house, type 2308

Figure 10: Elevations for detached house, type 2422

Figure 11: Elevations for barn-type terraced homes

Appendix 1.2: Building fabric thermal performance assumptions Element u-value Roof 0.13 Walls 0.25 Ground floor 0.2 Windows 1.20, g=0.50 Doors 1 y-value 0.04 Airtightness m3/(hr.m2) 3 Mechanical Ventilation MVHR 85% efficiency 1W /(l.s) specific fan power Figure 12: U-values and technical performance standards by building element

Appendix 2: Further information on climate change risks

Appendix 2.1: Selection of climate change scenarios Projections of mean annual change in temperature from the latest regional climate in Figure 13 show relatively little difference (less than 1oC) between the highest ‘business as usual’ (A1F1 or UKCP09 high scenario) and the lowest ‘aggressive mitigation’ (E1 which is below UKCP09 low scenario) projections in the 2050s. Temperature change in the 2080s is much more dependent on the emissions trajectory, with a difference of 3.2oC between ‘business as usual’ and ‘aggressive mitigation’.

Figure 13: UK-scale comparison of the mean annual change in UK temperature in the HadCM3QP and HadCM3C models, Annex A: Scenarios of climate variability and change of the Climate Change Risk Assessment The implication is that temperature rises are not strongly influenced by the emissions trajectory up to the 2050s. The adaptation strategy should aim to make the development resilient to any of these outcomes to avoid the risk of maladaptation. The range in possible temperatures in the 2080s means it is unlikely that a single strategy could be optimized to match all the projected outcomes. The strategy should include measures which facilitate retrofit options which could accommodate a wide range of temperature changes in the 2080s. This argument is supported by Figure 14 which shows a comparison between the likely temperature increases in 3 emissions scenarios. The temperature range within a single scenario is often greater than the difference between them. Because of the uncertainties in future projections the strategy should demonstrate sufficient flexibility to the range of possible futures and that the projections should not necessarily be used to ‘predict and provide’ standards to be metxxii.

Figure 14: Projected changes in global mean temperature (°C) relative to the for all three UKCP09 emissions scenarios and the three UKCP09 future time periods (blue=low, purple=medium, red=high, Annex A: Scenarios of climate variability and change of the Climate Change Risk Assessment

Appendix 2.2: Climate change projections Figure 15 and Figure 18 show the underlying climate around Oakham (based on measurements from 1961–1990) alongside projections of the expected change over the century under the high emissions scenario (based on the IPCC A1F1 scenario). Temperature projections The temperature is likely to increase throughout the year in future, with an increasing likelihood of prolonged hot periods and higher peak temperatures:

Figure 15 Average monthly maximum temperatures (°C) in Oakham over the century, under a high emissions scenario, compared to baseline period, using UKCP09 data

The Weather Generator has been used in conjunction with a threshold detector to predict changes in likelihood of heatwaves in future.

Figure 16: Likelihood of heatwaves (maximum temperature is above 30≤C and night temperature is above15≤C for a at least 3 days) occurring in the 2050s, high scenario, output from UKCP09 threshold detector

Figure 17: Likelihood of heatwaves (maximum temperature is above 30≤C and night temperature is above15≤C for a at least 3 days) occurring in the 2080s, high scenario, output from UKCP09 threshold detector

Figure 16 and Figure 17 show that heatwaves have a low to zero likelihood in current (baseline) climate. In the 2050s the likelihood of a heatwave increases in July and August. The mean average number of annual events increases to 0.4, which suggests that heatwaves will occur every 2-3 years. In the 2080s the mean average number of annual events increases to 1.4, suggesting that heatwaves could become a regular annual occurrence. The likelihood of prolonged events lasting 2 weeks or more is also greatly increased.

Rainfall projections The amount of annual rainfall is not expected to change significantly but changes to hydrological patterns make it likely that a greater proportion of all rainfall will fall in winter. The uncertainty in summer rainfall projections is larger than for winter, suggesting lower confidence in the scale of changes that are expected.

Figure 18 Average monthly rainfall (mm of rainfall per month) in Oakham over the century, under a high emissions scenario, compared to baseline period, using UKCP09 data A warmer atmosphere has a greater capacity for holding water which leads to a greater proportion of rainfall falling in in heavy downpours. This is supported by recent climate records showing a disproportionate increase in heavy rainfall events. The estimates developed suggest an increase in frequency and magnitude for both short and longer duration rainfall events, and increases of up to 30% in the magnitude of shorter one day events. For longer 10-day events there is a smaller projected increase of 10%. Some variation is expected in the trends between regions. It is not possible to use the Weather Generator to assess whether intense rainfall will become a more common occurrence in future because of the acknowledged inaccuracy of Weather Generator xxiii outputs over periods shorter than 1 day. Analysis by the Met Office has used an alternative technique to estimate changes in the frequency of extreme rainfall events due to climate change. Peterborough was the nearest town to Oakham assessed in the study. Its proximity means that the projected changes will be similar.

Winter

Summer

Figure 19: Projected changes in the likelihood of selected rainfall events in Winter (DJF) and summer (JJA) -The central estimate (50th percentile) is indicated by a solid line, and the 10th and 90th percentiles, illustrate the possible range of return periods and are shown by dotted lines. Note that Peterborough has been used as it’s the closest town to Oakham North assessed in the study. Met Office, 2010, Changes in the frequency of extreme rainfall events for selected towns and cities

Figure 19 shows how the return period for a range of different rainfall events is projected to change. For instance, a winter (DJF) rainfall event that is expected at present to occur 1 in 30 years (the solid orange line) is projected to become more than twice as frequent; a17 year return period in the 2040s and a 12 year return period in the 2080s.The dotted orange line represents the range of probable return periods implying that the 1 in 30 year event is unlikely to have the same probability in the 2080s and is also unlikely to occur more than every 1 in 8 years. Note that Figure 19 is based on the medium emissions scenario. The Met Office has not provided any analysis using other emissions scenarios. Wind speed projections Changes in wind speeds were included in the 2002 edition of the UK Climate Projections. In the 2009 edition they were assigned a very low level of confidence and were therefore not reported. While Association of British Insurers note that the potential impact of increasing wind speeds and storms is considerable, the uncertainty in the projections of windstorms in UKCP09 means that there can only be limited value in taking precautionary measures at this point.

Appendix 3: Further information on adaptation strategy The following reports are provided alongside this report, which provide further detail on the research and technical analysis undertaken to inform the adaptation strategy.

Appendix 3.1: Thermal Comfort Analysis and Recommendations, Buro Happold (2012) Uploaded as a separate document to the Connect portal: 400250_D4FC_OakhamNorth_LDADesign_FinalReport_Appendix3.1_ThermalComfortReport.pdf

Appendix 3.2: Technical Report on Construction Standards, Capita Symonds (2012) Uploaded as a separate document to the Connect portal: 400250_D4FC_OakhamNorth_LDADesign_FinalReport_Appendix3.2_ConstructionReport.pdf

Appendix 3.3: Managing Water Technical Report, Wormald Burrows (2013) Uploaded as a separate document to the Connect portal: 400250_D4FC_OakhamNorth_LDADesign_FinalReport_Appendix3.3_WaterReport.pdf

Appendix 3.4: Review of Existing Research on Trees and Climate Change, LDA Design (2012) Uploaded as a separate document to the Connect portal: 400250_D4FC_OakhamNorth_LDADesign_FinalReport_Appendix3.4_TreesReport.pdf

Appendix 3.5: Cost Feasibility Appraisals, Capita Symonds (2012) Uploaded as a separate document to the Connect portal: 400250_D4FC_OakhamNorth_LDADesign_FinalReport_Appendix3.5_CostAnalysisReport.pdf

Appendix 3.6: Thermal comfort adaptation options and assumptions

Measure Description / key assumptions

Glazing solar Improvement of g-value (solar transmittance) from 0.50 to 0.35 – equivalent to performance moving from low-E to solar control glazing

Thermal mass Change of internal walls identified by architect from light-weight construction to heavy-weight construction

Thermal mass Change of party walls identified by architect from light-weight construction to heavy- plus night-purge weight construction, with allowance for secure night-time window opening on upper and lower floors

Mechanical Assumed whole house mechanical ventilation air change rate increase from 0.5 ac/h ventilation flow to 2 ac/h – this implies future improvements to MVHR products which may allow for rate increase increased ventilation without significant increase in fan energy, duct size, noise etc.

Pre-cooling of Use of earth-tubes (or similar) to reduce temperature of fresh air intake – assumed by mechanical circa 2 degrees C ventilation air Typical configurations can include either Earth pipes/tubes – air drawn through buried pipes to capture heat from, or dissipate heat to, the ground Thermal labyrinths – similar to earth pipes but using larger volume (often concrete lined) spaces with increased air path for better heat transfer

Evaporative Use of evaporative cooling such as water spray as part of mechanical ventilation cooling system to reduce supply air temperature to its wet bulb temperature

Stack ventilation Where appropriate/feasible, this includes a central high level roof-light (typically above the dwelling stairs) and openings/louvres connecting living spaces to central stack – this is intended to drive warm/hot buoyant air upwards and away from the occupied space

External shading Use of external shutters to reduce solar gains – user controlled

Internal shading Use of roller blinds to reduce solar gains – user controlled

Green Use of grass, trees and planting in proximity to dwellings to reduce urban heat island infrastructure effect through increased evapo-transpiration – reduction in average summertime dry bulb temperature by ~2 degrees C

Adaptive thermal Improved thermal comfort as a result of significantly increased occupant control over comfort environment – based on guidance and adaptive comfort threshold criteria in BS EN 15251

Measures which were considered but have not been tested (or initial testing has determined negligible impacts) include:  Adjustment of ceiling/floor heights to increase air volume within dwelling – height increase limited by architectural requirements (maximum ~300mm at ground floor, maximum ~75mm at first floor)  Use of reflective foil lining under roof construction – limited application at domestic scale and requiring complex detailing

Appendix 3.7: Construction adaptation options and assumptions

Foundation options Description and implications

Options 1 and 2: Option 1 is a standard mass concrete foundation on ground Mass concrete on ground beams beams, which is suitable for foundations on a stable rock bed where climate change is not expected to have any adverse effect on the foundations. Option 2 is for foundations on shrinkable clay or unstable gravels where the foundation is taken below the likely influence of future seasonal desiccation. It will not be suitable where the ground is affected by roots of trees and large shrubs. A conservative approach has been taken to the depth of the required foundation as a result of the uncertainty with regard to future seasonal desiccation depths. This option does require the Rock excavations to be supported for health and safety reasons. This does add additional complication to the building works. In addition, as with Option 3, such a deep excavation will be open longer than usual and will be subject to a greater risk of flooding and softening of the base of the excavation in inclement weather.

Option 3: Basement box This option incorporates a basement to the residential building to make use of the need for deeper foundations due to climate change. Option 3 provides substantial additional living/storage space in the building and may have considerable advantages with space heating of the building. An access ramp may permit the use of part of the space for garaging of vehicles. The disadvantage is the additional cost of the option over Option 2 and 5 but this may well be outweighed by the possible deletion of a surface garage and a likely higher selling price given the greater usable square meterage of the building. Variable made ground

Option 4: Piles on ground beams This uses the current BRE recommended pile and beam approach for building on ground with deep desiccation, and can be expected to remove all risk of ground movement if correctly designed and detailed. Common practice is to use small diameter (200 --300mm) bored concrete piles, with the option of including a slip membrane around the pile in desiccated clays to avoid uplift due to future heave. The primary advantage of 54

Foundation options Description and implications bored piles is that they can be easily varied in depth from property to property to make allowance for variable depth of desiccation due to trees and large shrubs and for variable strength of the shrinkable clay. Costs for this solution are also dependent on the number of properties that are to be built as the mobilisation costs reduce per unit as the number of properties increases. It is more expensive than Option 5.

Screw piling is an alternative steel pile option that is rotated into the ground to a set level. This form of piling is beginning to be used more extensively as it is rapid to install and can be an economic solution for residential buildings. In addition to being an economic option for installation there is minimal material displaced to the ground surface and thus minimal disposal costs. The primary disadvantage is where the ground contains hard layers, such as mudstone bands, which may prevent the screw pile reaching the required level. Such bands can be common in UK clays and site specific ground investigation should indicate if these bands are present in the ground. In highly variable ground bored pile are preferred as unlike screw piles as the actual ground encountered can be seen in arisings.

Option 5: Deep raft option This is an Australian practice of allowing some movement of the foundations but allowing the superstructure to be unaffected by the movement. This option reduces the excavation required and thus the amount of waste. It will require the additional skills of steel fixers to install the steel of the reinforced slab. The building will move with seasonal desiccation and on variable ground may lead to some local minor temporary tilting of the building. It is a cheap solution that is likely to be competitive with traditional shallow strip foundations. Some local authorities require this type of foundation to be underlain by an excavation filled with granular fill which we consider to be superfluous to requirements. The uncertainty of the precise effects of climate change on foundations on clay favours the adoption of a strengthened platform, which can allow buildings to accommodate greater foundation movements than currently adopted solutions.

The assessment of construction options has assumed that the climate may become similar to that of South Eastern Australia, leading to similar issues to those found in that area with shrinkable clays. Reference has therefore been made to 2011 Australian Standard AS 2870 – 2011 Residential slabs and footings in considering foundation options, particularly option 5. The foundation options and pricing have assumed that there is no contaminated soil to be excavated or treated within the area of the foundations, made ground is not present to greater than 500mm depth, there is no required stabilisation of underground workings, the site for the foundations is essentially level and that no groundwater will be encountered within the excavations. A two storey timber domestic structure can be constructed on piles designed to carry loads of 20kN/m run (2 tonnes a metre length of wall), a ground beam of 500mm width and 400mm depth (6 longitudinal reinforcing bars of 12mm’ diameter (3H12 both top and bottom, R12 links at 250p) with some cross linking bars also of 12mm diameter every 250mm along the beam will then suffice to carry the loads. The beam can be supported at a maximum pile spacing of 4m with a 300mm pile of up to 10-15m in depth. On top of this, so as to ensure that damp does not affect the timber a nominal 300mm by 215mm brick dwarf wall may be constructed to carry the timber soleplate from which the timber panels are constructed, provide a damp course (dpc) and allow any under-floor ventilation as required. The vertical timber studs used for the construction will be 38mm x 140mm to allow for the required insulation and pressure proofing and these will be attached to horizontal rails of a similar dimension that support the ply or board finish.

Appendix 3.8: Tree species considered resilient to projected climate change

Species Size Notes (approximate) Acer campestre & cvs Medium: 7x10 m after 25 years Acer platanoides & cvs. Medium: 7x15 m after 25 years Acer rubrum & cvs. Large: 9x6 m after 25 years Acer saccharinum & cvs. Large: 8x15 m Needs open but sheltered after 25 years location. Branches can be damaged by wind. Alnus cordata Medium: 12x3 m Good street tree after 25 years Alnus glutinosa Medium: 10x5 m Fast growing. Naturally after 25 years forms a good multi stem Alnus x spaethii Medium: 12x6 m Fast growing. Resistant to after 25 years wind and frost. Betula pendula Medium: 10x5 m Open, elegant canopy after 25 years Betula utilis & cvs Medium: 9x4 m Good white bark after 25 years Carpinus betulus Large: 8x15 m Thrives on heavy soils after 25 years Castanea sativa Large: 12x6 m Fast growing and drought after 25 years tolerant Catalpa spp. Medium: 10x5 m Needs space for display of after 25 years its form. Cerecidiphyllum japonicum Small: 5x4 m after 25 years Corylus colurna Large: 8x3 m after Very symmetrical, 25 years pyramidal form. Crategus spp. Small: 6x4 m Excellent in flower and after 25 years many have showy berries in autumn. Fagus sylvatica & cvs. Large: 10x6 m Good Parkland tree after 25 years Ginkgo biloba Medium to large: Conical habit 5x10 m after 25 years Gledistsia triacanthos & cvs. Medium: 5x10 m Thorn less varieties after 25 years preferred for public areas Juglans nigra Large: 15x8 m Fast growing. Round after 25 years spreading head

Species Size Notes (approximate) Juglans regia Medium to large: Rounded broad head 13x5 m after 25 requires space to grow years Liquidambar spp. Large: 10x5 m Straight trunk. Very good after 25 years autumn colour Malus cvs Small: 7x3 m Good for spring flowers and after 25 years autumn fruit Platanus cvs Large: 15x8 m Fast growing, good street after 25 years tree Prunus cerasifera cvs. Small: 7x5 m Slow growing after 25 years Prunus padus & cvs Medium: 12x8 m Vigorous after 25 years Pterocarya fraxinifolia Large: 12x7 m Wide spreading and fast after 25 years growing Pyrus calleryana ‘Chanticleer’ Medium: 8x3 m Upright street tree after 25 years Quercus castanaefolia Large: 15x4 m Vigorous tree of columnar after 25 years habit Quercus ilex Large: 10x7 m Only broad leaved after 25 years evergreen in UK Quercus robur & cvs. Large: 12x8 m Native, fairly slow growing after 25 years but long lived Quercus rubra Large: 12x8 m Fast growing. Strong after 25 years autumn colour Robinia spp. & cvs. Medium to large: Fast growing. Can be brittle 14x8 m after 25 and unsuitable for exposed years locations. Sorbus aria spp. & cvs. Small to medium: Round headed 6x4 m after 25 years Sorbus aucuparia Small: 7x4 m Native and fast growing after 25 years Tilia cordata spp. & cvs. Medium to large: Round headed native 14x8 m after 25 years Tilia x euchlora Medium: 10x6 m Does not suffer from after 25 years aphids. Robust in dry, hot summers. Tilia tomentosa & cvs. Large: 10x6 m Leaves are dark green above after 25 years and silvery-white below. Ulmus ‘New Horizon’ 4m x 10m Disease resistant strain after 25 years

Appendix 3.9: Checklist 3: Design opportunities exploited

Adaptation design Has this design opportunity been considered (C), challenge recommended (R), implemented (I)

Keeping cool - internal Shading -building form N/A – building form already fixed

Shading – manufactured R

Glass technologies R

Film technologies N/A – new building

Green roofs/ transpiration cooling C

Shading - planting R

Reflective materials N/A, out of scope

Conflict between maximising C daylight and overheating (mitigation vs adaptation)

Secure and bug free night ventilation R

Interrelationship with noise & air C pollution

Interrelationship with ceiling height N/A, out of scope

Role of thermal mass in significantly R warmer climate

Enhancing thermal mass in R lightweight construction

Energy efficient/ renewable powered R cooling systems

Groundwater cooling R

Enhanced control systems – peak N/A, out of scope lopping

Maximum temperature legislation C

Adaptation design Has this design opportunity been considered (C), challenge recommended (R), implemented (I)

Keeping cool - spaces Built form - building to building N/A – building layout around buildings shading already fixed

Access to external space -overheating I relief

Shade from planting R

Manufactured shading R

Interrelationship with renewables N/A, out of scope

Shading parking/ transport N/A, out of scope infrastructure

Role of water - landscape/ swimming N/A, out of scope pools

Keeping warm at less cost Building fabric insulation standards C

Relevance of heat reclaim systems C

Heating appliance design for minimal C heating - hot water load as design driver

Structural stability -below Foundation design - subsidence/ C ground heave/ soils/ regions

Underpinning N/A

Retaining wall and slope stability N/A

Structural stability -above Lateral stability - wind loading N/A – insufficient ground standards information on wind speeds in climate projections

Loading from ponding C

Fixings and Fixing standards - walls, roofs N/A, out of scope weatherproofing

Detail design for extremes - wind - 3 N/A, out of scope step approach

Adaptation design Has this design opportunity been considered (C), challenge recommended (R), implemented (I)

Lightning strikes (storm intensity) N/A, out of scope

Tanking/ underground tanks in N/A, out of scope relation to water table- contamination, buoyancy, pressure

Detail design for extremes - rain - N/A, out of scope thresholds/ joints

Materials behaviour in high N/A, out of scope temperatures

Construction -materials Effect of extended wetting - N/A, out of scope behaviour permeability, rotting, weight

Effect of extended heat/ UV -drying N/A, out of scope out, shrinkage, expansion, de- lamination, softening, reflection, admittance, colour fastness

Performance in extremes - wind - air N/A, out of scope tightness, strength, suction/ pressure

Performance in extremes - rain N/A, out of scope

Construction -work on site Temperature limitations for building N/A, out of scope processes

Stability during construction N/A, out of scope

Inclement winter weather -rain N/A, out of scope (reduced freezing?)

Working conditions -Site N/A, out of scope accommodation

Working conditions - internal N/A, out of scope conditions in incomplete/ unserviced buildings (overlap with robustness in use)

Water supply/ Low water use fittings  conservation

Grey water storage 

Adaptation design Has this design opportunity been considered (C), challenge recommended (R), implemented (I)

Rain water storage 

Alternatives to water based drainage N/A, out of scope

Pools as irrigation water storage N/A, out of scope

Limits to development N/A, out of scope

Water intensive construction N/A, out of scope processes

Drainage - external Drain design R

Soakaway design R

SUDS design R

Drainage - building related Gutter/ roof/ upstand design N/A, out of scope

Flood - avoidance Environment Agency guidance - C location, infrastructure

Combination effects -wind + rain + sea N/A level rise

Flood - resistance/ Flood defence – permanent N/A resilience

Flood defence - temporary -products N/A etc

Evacuation/ self sufficiency N/A

Flood tolerant construction N/A

Flood tolerant products and materials N/A

Post-flood recovery measures N/A

Landscape Plant selection - drought resistance vs R cooling effect of transpiration

Changes to ecology N/A, out of scope

Irrigation techniques N/A, out of scope

Adaptation design Has this design opportunity been considered (C), challenge recommended (R), implemented (I)

Limitations on use of water features - N/A, out of scope mosquitoes etc

Role of planting and paving in R modifying micro climate & heat island effect

Failsafe design for extremes -water N/A, out of scope

Firebreaks N/A, out of scope

Building Management N/A, out of scope Operation Review Handover, early occupation and policies in relation to the Soft Landings process and future legacy.

Internal Gains Review IT requirements and N/A, out of scope management systems in design and in use.

Consumption Ensure log book is in place, N/A, out of scope monitoring equipment commissioned and used.

Activity Engage with users through design. N/A, out of scope

Maintenance WOL building assessments as part of N/A, out of scope a usable O+M manual.

Appendix 4: Further information on project learning

Appendix 4.1: Team structure The team structure is set out in the following organogram, followed by short biographies on the key people involved.

Developer and Client Paul Adams Larkfleet

Project Director Robert Shaw LDA Design

Project Leader Raphael Sibille/Helen Pearce (from January 2012) LDA Design

Project Architect Thermal Comfort Water Management Construction Quantity Surveyors Duncan Chapman Dr Mei Ren Bill Douglas and Robin Sanders David Colyer RCOH Buro Happold Hiranthi Cook Capita Symonds Capita Symonds Wormald Burrows

Appendix 4.2: Biographies of team members LDA Design: lead partner, knowledge of Oakham North, climate change adaptation specialists, architects, landscape architects, green infrastructure and design specialists, dissemination and case study material. Rob Shaw, BSc (Hons), DipTP, MRTPI (Director of Sustainability and Climate Change, LDA Design) chaired the stakeholder panel for the ASCCUE climate change adaptation research, participated in a range of cutting edge projects including the current ARCADIA project and co-authored the TCPA’s Climate Change Adaptation by Design guide. He developed the methodology and led work for the 2012 Olympics Legacy Scheme climate change adaptation strategy and was on the expert panel for the acclaimed European GrABS project. Rob is a regular speaker and communicator on adaptation, including for Design Council. He will direct the project. He will lead all stages and have an oversight of all work packages and contribute expertise to all project stages. Raphael Sibille, MSc, BSc (Hons), AIEMA (Project Consultant, Energy and Climate Change, LDA Design) provides advice to public and private sector clients on climate change adaptation, energy efficient building design and renewable and low carbon energy technologies. Raphael co-authored the climate change adaptation strategy for the 2012 Olympics Legacy Scheme. He project managed a Local Climate Impacts Profiles for 10 local authorities in Yorkshire and contributed to a study for Climate East Midlands and DEFRA on the use of ‘natural interventions’ as adaptation measures. Raphael will be the project manager and will contribute expertise to all project elements. Helen Pearce, MEng, MSc (Associate, Energy and Climate Change, LDA Design) specialises in advising public and private sector clients and communities on renewable and low carbon energy, climate change and sustainable design and construction. She has managed numerous projects,

many with challenging timescales, tight budgets and engagement with a range of stakeholders, including community consultation. She is responsible for the technical quality of our work in this area and maintains a rigorous, innovative and creative approach, ensuring it represents best industry practice. rCOH: Project architects Duncan Chapman, MA (Hons), Dip Arch, RIBA (Associate, Architect, LDA Design) brings specialist architectural expertise to bear to the interface between architecture, public realm, landscape and infrastructure design. Current projects include Oakham North Phase 1. Duncan will support the architecture, landscape and public realm work, contributing to all stages. Buro Happold: Thermal comfort assessment Dr. Mei Ren (Technical Director, Buro Happold) – Mei has a wide range of experience in building physics, low carbon consulting, planning, research and development and project management. Mei has delivered a major study on behalf of Partnership for Schools looking at school overheating risks across various projected climatic conditions. Mei is actively involved in research and development in the field of climate change adaptation. She participated and presented at the Climate Proof Cities programme funded by Dutch government. She also sits on CIBSE Climate Taskforce forum to review CIBSE recommendations of weather year data for building design. Wormald Burrows: Water management Bill Douglas (Partner, Wormald Douglas) and Hiranthi Cook (Associate Partner, Wormald Douglas) have respectively over 40 years and 18 years’ experience in Civil Engineering. The team has been involved in the Oakham North project for 9 years, assisting in developing the overall drainage strategy (foul and surface water), Flood Risk Assessments and preparing drainage strategy modelling and reports. They have also assisted in the masterplan relating to all drainage matters. Capita Symonds: Quantity surveyors and construction Robin Sanders, BSc MSc DIC CEng MIMMM FCIHT FGS (Director, Forensic Services, Capita Symonds) has extensive experience in geotechnical design in relation to building foundations on soft or unstable ground including shrinkable clays. He pioneered the use of polystyrene as engineered fill for load-bearing structures. He has acted as an expert advisor and witness for most leading construction law practices, insurers and underwriters for the last 20 years on ground related disputes involving building foundations. David Colyer (Associate Director, Capita Symonds) leads a team of specialist sustainability quantity surveyors (QS) and contributed to the government’s ‘Zero Carbon Task Force’ advice on comparative suitability of various low-carbon retrofit measures for schools. David also provides commercial services for Capita’s self-funded green retrofit solution for estates owners, which involves having a thorough understanding of latest technologies and also methods to evaluate investment options. Larkfleet Homes: Developer and client Paul Adams is Operations Director for Larkfleet Homes and our key client contact. He has responsibility for the development and marketing of homes in Phase 1 of Oakham North. His career in the housebuilding industry gives him expert insight into the supply chain, construction techniques and products, the housing market, housebuyer perceptions and issues affecting the viability of development.

Appendix 4.3: Presentation by Rob Shaw on climate change adaptation for Ecobuild, 21 March 2012 Uploaded as a separate document to the Connect portal: 400250_D4FC_OakhamNorth_LDADesign_FinalReport_Appendix4.3_EcobuildPres.pdf

Appendix 4.4: Presentation by Rob Shaw and Raphael Sibille to Defra's Adapting to Climate Change team Uploaded as a separate document to the Connect portal: 400250_D4FC_OakhamNorth_LDADesign_FinalReport_Appendix4.4_DefraPres.pdf

Appendix 4.5: Case study Uploaded as a separate document to the Connect portal: 400250_D4FC_OakhamNorth_LDADesign_FinalReport_Appendix4.5_CaseStudy.pdf

Appendix 5: Further information on extending adaptation to other buildings See endnotes for references to resources and information used in the completion of this study which are recommended for use in future work.

Endnotes

i Design for Future Climate, an Adaptation Agenda for the Built Environment” 2010, by Bill Gething ii CABE, 2005, Does money grow on trees? iii Draft 2014 Water Resources Management Plan, Anglian Water (2013) iv International Energy Agency, 2011, World Energy Outlook v Policy Exchange, 2011, Climate Change Policy – Time for Plan B vi IPCC, 2000, Special Report on Emission Scenarios vii IPCC Working Group I and Working Group II, 2011, Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation viii Stern, N, 2012, Climate change and the new industrial revolution, Lionel Robbins Memorial Lectures at London School of Economics ix A projection of future change in climate (relative to a baseline period) that assigns probability levels to different climate change outcomes. This projection provides a change value for the future climate, expressed as the difference from the (modelled) 1961–1990 baseline climate (as opposed to the absolute value expressed in probabilistic climate projections). For more information refer to: www.ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk x DEFRA, 2012, Climate Change Risk Assessment for the Built Environment Sector xi 2009 – UK Climate Projections Briefing Report – DEFRA 2009 – UK Climate Change Projections – DEFRA 2010 – UK Wind Patterns and Climate Change – Does Anyone Know the Future? S. Jordan UK Conference of Wind Engineering 2010 – Challenges for the Assessment of Future Design Wind Wilkinson SM et al UK Conference of Wind Engineering xii DEFRA & Environment Agency, 2009, Regionalised Impacts of Climate Change on Flood Flows xiii Pittock, A. B. & Jones, R. N., 2000, Adaptation to what and why? Environ. Monit. Assess. 61, 9–35 xiv Design for Future Climate, an Adaptation Agenda for the Built Environment” 2010, by Bill Gething xv Oakham North Environmental Statement, Hawksmead Ltd (2009) xvi CLG, 2012, Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework xvii Sewers for Adoption, 6th Edition xviii Cost of building to the Code for Sustainable Homes: Updated Cost Review, Element Energy and Davis Langdon, CLG (2011) xix CABE, 2005, Does money grow on trees? xx Timber frame construction: Building towards a more sustainable future, UKTFA (2012) xxi House building statistics statistical data set: Live tables on house building, Table 209: Permanent dwellings completed, by tenure and country, DCLG (last updated May 2013) xxii DEFRA, 2012, Climate Change Risk Assessment, Annex A: Scenarios of climate variability and change

xxiii Met Office, 2010, Changes in the frequency of extreme rainfall events for selected towns and cities